New Homes
 - Question

Lord Young of Cookham: To ask His Majesty’s Government in what year they expect to reach their target of building 300,000 new homes a year.

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: My Lords, we are continuing to work towards our ambition of delivering 300,000 homes a year. This has always been a stretching ambition and we have made strong progress. The three highest rates of annual supply in more than 30 years have all come since 2018. We are aware that increasing supply even further will be made more difficult due to the economic challenges we face, but we are engaging with Homes England, developers and registered providers to understand their delivery challenges.

Lord Young of Cookham: I am grateful to my noble friend, but has she read the leader in last Saturday’s Times? It said of the Government’s housing target:
“That goal has now been sacrificed on the altar of appeasing rural Conservative backbenchers fearful of a backlash in their green and pleasant constituencies”,
and concluded:
“The political calculations of the Tory party are in danger of strangling Britain’s housebuilding industry, retarding economic growth and depriving young people of the affordable homes they so desperately need”.
Can my noble friend confirm that this controversial policy, which was launched in a consultation document last December and has not yet been adopted, might be amended in light of the widespread criticism that it has now generated?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: Yes, I have read the Times article. We are carefully analysing the many detailed responses we received to the consultation and expect to respond formally later in the autumn. It is worth making it clear to my noble friend that the proposals in the consultation are not government policy. My noble friend should also be reassured that, as I have said before, the Government remain committed to our ambition of delivering 300,000 new homes per year. The proposals in the consultation are designed to support areas to get more local plans in place. That will deliver more housing and stop communities being exposed to development by appeal.

Earl of Devon: My Lords, for some weeks we have heard scare stories that 100,000 new homes are blocked by the rules on nutrient neutrality. I am therefore glad that the Government have debunked that myth with their recent explainer, which states that only 16,500 homes are currently impacted. By comparison, Savills estimates that 150,000 homes are land-banked in 2021, and Homes England sits on 250,000 more new homes. Given those numbers, is there any real justification for the Government’s assault on the habitat regulations, the health of our rivers and their own good environmental reputation?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: Yes, there is, my Lords. The 16,500 figure is annual, while the 100,000 figure is between now and 2030. The Government have put in place a package of mitigation that will allow us to deal with nutrient neutrality not as a sticking plaster, stopping housing being built, but by dealing with the issues at source. If the noble Earl reads the mitigation circumstances, he will see what we are doing and how much we are investing in that.

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I found the Minister’s reply rather disappointing. I appreciate the ambition, but it is the implementation that is the major problem. Drastic cuts of funding to social housing have resulted in many households in need being trapped in the private rented sector, and the number of affordable homes is just not meeting that need. Current conditions have meant that private sector building has flatlined, but social housing builders can be countercyclical and, with the right investment, could do so much more. The Government will reach their target only by investing massively in social homes. Do the Government and the Minister agree with that? If not, can she please explain how that target will be met?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: My Lords, the Government are committed to increasing the supply of affordable housing, which is why, through our £11.5 billion Affordable Homes Programme, we will deliver tens of thousands of affordable homes for sale or rent across the country. The levelling up White Paper committed to increasing the supply of social rented homes, and a large number of the new homes delivered through our Affordable Homes Programme will be for social rent.

Bishop of Gloucester: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that answer about affordability, but I wonder what steps the Government are taking to ensure that the definition of affordability is a good one. Could we redefine it so that it means affordable for most local people in that community, and look at what that is doing to house prices generally in each area?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: We had a debate on this quite recently on the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill. Through the consultation on the NPPF, we are looking at affordable housing and, when we have finished that consultation and looked at the results, we will consider it further.

Lord Harrington of Watford: My Lords, the work done on the National Planning Policy Framework by my noble friend Lord Pickles, Brandon Lewis and Greg Clark was in my view one of the major achievements during the coalition, because it provided a sensible balance between a stick and a carrot, with local authorities producing a plan and a mechanism for the Government to step in if they did not. This led to a significant increase in the land supply. With the changes that have taken place in the last few months, the mood music is completely different. Local authorities know that applications to appeal are quite futile. A disastrous thing has happened. What do the Government intend to do about it? If they do nothing, the 300,000 target will be pure fantasy.

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: I quite agree with my noble friend about the importance of the NPPF. That is why we are consulting on it, will review it when we have the results of the consultation and will come back out to consult on our further ideas on how we can update it—we cannot leave it there in aspic for ever. By doing that and by the measures in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill to modernise the planning system, we will deliver more houses through local plans and hit the 300,000 target.

Baroness Pinnock: My Lords, I have relevant interests in this Question. Councils’ local plans incorporate their share of the national housing targets. Can the Minister explain how national housing targets can be achieved when more than 60% of local councils do not have an up-to-date local plan?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: The noble Baroness is right: we need more local plans. That is how we will deliver more houses. We know from evidence that local planning authorities that have local plans deliver more houses. That is why we have the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, are changing and simplifying making local plans and will insist that local authorities deliver local plans. If they do not, we have measures to push them to do so.

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage: My Lords, in her response to the debate on housing targets during the Report stage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, the Minister stated:
“To get enough homes built in places where people and communities need them, a crucial first step is to plan for the right number of homes”.—[Official Report, 6/9/23; col. 426.]
The National House Building Council’s statistics show a dramatic decline in registrations in quarter 2 across most regions, compared with the same quarter last year; it was down 67% in the north-west, for example. It is going in the wrong direction. What is the Government’s plan to ensure that local targets meet that 300,000 homes target?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: As I said to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, we are in an economic situation that is not as favourable for housebuilding as it was, and therefore we have to work with Homes England, developers and local planning  authorities to ensure that we give all the support we can, reinvigorate the housing market and get these houses built.

Lord Londesborough: My Lords, when house prices fall, as they are doing now, big building firms tend to sit on their balance sheets and play the waiting game. That is very bad news for new homes as big builders now have a 90% share of the UK market while SMEs have seen their share collapse from 40% to less than 10%. Does the Minister agree that this market domination is stifling competition and is bad news for the supply of new homes?

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: I absolutely do. We need to spend more time with our SME housebuilders. The levelling-up home building fund is providing £1.5 billion in development finance to SMEs and builders for exactly this reason: to support them to build more homes. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill is making changes to support SMEs, making the planning process much faster and more predictable for them so that they can stay in business and build more houses.

NHS: Staff Numbers
 - Question

Lord Clark of Windermere: To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to increase the number of staff working in the NHS.

Lord Markham: A record number of staff are working in the NHS, including more than 6,000 more doctors and more than 16,400 more nurses than last year. We have backed the NHS long-term workforce plan with more than £2.4 billion over five years. This will put us on course to double the number of medical school training places, almost double the number of adult nursing training places and increase the number of GP training places by 50% by 2031. It will also ensure that the NHS workforce is put on a sustainable footing for the future.

Lord Clark of Windermere: I thank the Minister for his Answer, but he knows that there is a dire shortage of staff right across the NHS, with 47,000 nursing vacancies. The recruitment of nurses to training places is down 13% this year. Some 170,000 workers in the NHS left their jobs last year, mainly under stress. Today, we have the news that a survey found that 32% of students who are currently in medical school have said that they intend to emigrate on completing their studies. I repeat what I asked in my Question: what plans do the Government have to increase the number of staff working in the NHS?

Lord Markham: The whole House will, I think, recognise that we have extensive plans that are, as I said, backed by £2.4 billion. That is what the long-term  workforce plan was all about. There were many requests for us to put it in place and that is what we have delivered. All of this comes in the context of 63,000 more members of staff over the past year—actually, around 280,000 more members of staff since 2010. Those are substantial increases. Do we need to do more? Yes. Is that what the long-term workforce plan is all about? Yes.

Lord Dobbs: My Lords, those within the NHS must be allowed to work safely. Has my noble friend seen the reports today? A third of female surgeons have been sexually assaulted by other doctors within their workplaces, sometimes while they are actually operating on people. It is as unbelievable as it is appalling. What plans does my noble friend have for getting to the bottom of this, finding out the truth of these allegations and holding responsible those who are responsible for the safety of working practices within the NHS? In its recent dealings with him, did the British Medical Association mention this terrible issue—or have its interests been concentrated solely on money?

Lord Markham: I thank my noble friend. Like all of us, I am sure, I was appalled to hear about that study. The most fundamental purpose of any employer is the safety and well-being of their staff, obviously, and I am afraid that the hospitals that allowed that to happen and allowed that culture to take place clearly failed. Clearly, we need to get to the bottom of that. As I often say, it starts with the leadership in each hospital and the culture that is built up within each college. Those are the people who need to be looking at themselves in the mirror and asking whether they have the right culture to make sure that everyone feels safe in the workplace.

Lord Allan of Hallam: My Lords, we know that the Minister is a big fan of data dashboards for tracking such things as the flow of patients through hospitals. Does he agree that such a dashboard would be an excellent way for us to track the Government’s progress against all the various targets that they have put into their workforce plan? Will he commit to producing one?

Lord Markham: I believe that the whole point of the workforce plan is that every couple of years there is a review of our progress against it and how it needs to be adapted, since it is a moving feast. So, absolutely, it is vital and something we are working on. Overall, the things that we said that we would do we are on course for. We said that we would increase the number of nurses by 50,000 over the course of this Parliament. It is currently 47,000. We said that we would increase doctors’ appointments by 50 million. That is currently on track. So a lot of good work has already happened. A lot of targets have been hit. Yes, there is more to be done and we are happy to track it.

Lord Patel: My Lords, it is currently predicted that there will be a shortage of about 4,000 fully trained anaesthetists by 2025. The Government’s plan to expand anaesthesia associate training will also need anaesthetists to supervise the trainees in the workplace.  However, currently there is a bottleneck at a certain level of the training of anaesthetists. That bottleneck can be resolved by increasing the number of training slots. Why do we not do that?

Lord Markham: In every area, anaesthetists being a very good example, we need to be looking at where the bottlenecks are and moving to free up those situations. I think we would all agree that with practitioners such as anaesthetists and in other areas, it is a very sensible approach to make sure that the most highly skilled are focused on the most highly skilled jobs and that they can have people underneath them who can be trained to work within that. So hearing that there is a certain amount of opposition from certain colleges and the BMA to those sorts of roles is quite disappointing. I hope they would accept that this is a key way of addressing the issue.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, can I take the Minister back to the original Question from my noble friend Lord Clark? He put before the House some quite startling statistics about the number of medical staff—particularly but not exclusively doctors —who are leaving following or shortly after the completion of their training, either for other countries or for private practice? What view does he take of that drain away from the National Health Service and the effective loss of the investment that the country makes in the very expensive training of clinicians?

Lord Markham: My first point on that is to ask what the real facts are. Five years on from qualification, around 95% of doctors are still registered with the General Medical Council and still practising in the UK. So the fact is that retention is very high. That notwithstanding, we want to do everything that we can to retain people, and professional development is what the long-term workforce plan is all about. Also, we all know that pensions were a big reason for a lot of the brain drain and doctors leaving the profession, and that was something we were quite radical in supporting and changing. We are going through this bit by bit, asking what key things we need to do to retain our staff and resolve this.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I have seen press reports that suggest, from future projections, that one in 11 people in the workforce will end up being employed by the NHS. Does the Minister really believe that this is sustainable? What plans does he have to avoid what would be a completely impossible situation for the economy?

Lord Markham: Yes, I am aware of this. Health spending equates to roughly 11% of the GDP of our country. Not surprisingly, the number of people in the workforce reflect that. It is absolutely mind-blowing; the amount of investment going into this space is bigger than the economy of Greece. Without a doubt, we have to make productivity improvements and look to technology, AI and all the things we can do to improve output and make sure that that total is not just ever-increasing.

Baroness Merron: My Lords, the Government’s workforce plan is silent on having enough properly maintained treatment facilities, buildings and equipment, all of which have become increasingly inadequate. Could the Minister confirm what assessment has been made of the physical capacity requirements to deliver the NHS workforce plan? How will he ensure that staff have what they need to do their job?

Lord Markham: The noble Baroness is absolutely correct: a workforce plan needs to be backed up with the physical real estate to deliver it. As noble Lords are aware, I am responsible for the new hospitals programme, which is part of that. In primary care, much of the long-term workforce plan is all about getting upstream of the problem in terms of prevention, and clearly we need to make sure that the physical real estate is there to support that. So the next steps will be to make sure that the capital meets the long-term workforce plan.

Baroness Jolly: My Lords, the NHS needs more recruits, but can the Minister tell the House where there are pressing shortages that adversely affect patient care and when he anticipates that the problem will be sorted?

Lord Markham: As I say, the long-term workforce plan puts this on the right footing, going forward. There are big increases in the number of staff, so it is not like we have not been working hard on this area already. By any definition, 63,000 more staff over the last year is a prime example of that. So we are addressing this, but I am not going to pretend to the House that this can be done once, lightly and quickly; it is part of a long-term programme, which the long-term workforce plan is all about.

Children’s Health: Sugar
 - Question

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of sugar on children’s health.

Lord Markham: The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition undertook a comprehensive assessment of sugar intake and health in its 2015 report Carbohydrates and Health. In 2023, it looked specifically at children aged one to five. SACN concluded that reducing the intake of sugar would lower the risk of tooth decay and weight gain in children and adolescents. The Government have an ambitious programme to reduce children’s sugar intake, which includes the soft drinks industry levy.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: I thank the Minister for his reply. One area where the Government have failed to take the action they should is to encourage the industry to reformulate food more than it is doing at the moment—to take out sugar and substitute the  alternative, organic, healthy sweeteners that are available. Would the Government look into this and do some more work? Would they be prepared to invite companies that are willing to enter public/private partnerships to start doing that?

Lord Markham: First, I recognise all the work the noble Lord does in this space. Secondly, I completely agree that reformulation is the big prize as part of this. The House will remember me mention before that Mars, Galaxy, Bounty and Snickers have all reformulated their food, as has Mr Kipling and his “exceedingly good” cakes—they are compliant cakes as well. There is a lot being done here, but there is more to do. We meet the industry all the time and are very happy doing so.

Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in Canada, thousands of children have been fed on whole milk for many years, and their problems with obesity do not exist? The food industry has deliberately promoted a low-fat diet. It is a lousy diet that tastes horrible; that is why they have had to shovel in such vast quantities of sugar. Could the Minister ensure that the Department of Health no longer advocates a low-fat diet? Fat going into the duodenum acts on the stomach, making it empty more slowly and therefore giving the feeling that the patient has had enough.

Lord Markham: I think one of the things that, hopefully, I have learned in the almost year that I have been answering Questions is when I know the answer to a question and when I do not. I am afraid this is one of the examples of the latter. I will happily look up the Canadian example of the use of whole milk and write to the noble Lord on it.

Lord Krebs: My Lords, I declare my interests, as recorded in the register. I was very pleased to hear the Minister refer to the soft drinks industry levy, which has been a very successful way of reducing sugar consumption in soft drinks. Therefore, do the Government have plans to extend that levy to other products that contain a lot of sugar? That would be a very effective way of reducing sugar consumption.

Lord Markham: The noble Lord is correct; that has been a success story. Overall, we have seen a 46% reduction of sugar, while at the same time sales of drinks in that category have gone up by 21%—that is 60%-plus if you combine the two. We are now looking at other moves that can help. The movement of product positioning to remove the so-called “pester power” is a key step forward in this. Of all the modelling that has been done, that is the thing that it is thought will reduce calories by the most—by 96%. That is the current focus; it has been in place for almost a year and early evidence is that it is working, but as ever we must keep everything under review.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, for the 4 million children in food poverty, the quality of their school lunch is crucial to their health and development. But the school food standard has not been reviewed since 2014, and nobody checks whether schools are adhering  to it anyway. With so many children going hungry, is it not time that the standard of school food was brought up to date with the latest research on the impact of sugar and other nutrients?

Lord Markham: The noble Baroness is absolutely correct. What we give children in schools is a key thing that the Government can affect. That is why I am delighted that the level of free school meals, at 33%, is the highest on record, making sure that they have good nutritious food. But the noble Baroness is correct: there was a review taking place in 2019, which was one of the casualties of Covid. I know that it is now one of the things that we are thinking, as we recover from Covid, that we need to look at again.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, the Minister has spoken passionately about reducing the intake of sugar by younger people. Are His Majesty’s Government intending to admit obese children with type 2 diabetes to the two-year pilot study of the new drug Wegovy?

Lord Markham: My understanding—and I will confirm this afterwards—is that, to begin with, always with these sorts of treatments, you want to make sure that you are doing it in a safer type of environment. Generally, having adults doing it is a better place to start. Clearly, if that works the way we think, and we can trust that it will work, then you have opportunities to expand beyond that. The other thing I would like to say on this is that, actually, an active life is very important—activity and sports are a very important component of this. Interestingly, it has been shown that an active life increases life expectancy by one to two years, so that is an important feature in all this as well.

Lord Hampton: My Lords, as a design technology teacher now teaching food nutrition as well, can I ask whether, rather than sugars, of which the risks are well known, the Government will update NHS advice on ultra-processed food, particularly its website? These seem to pose a much higher risk to health, particularly as they are often marketed as the healthy option.

Lord Markham: Many noble Lords will recall the Question we had on this before. It is the actual ingredients that are the problem. Ultra-processed foods, in and of themselves, are not a good definition because bread is an example of an ultra-processed food. The problem is that many of these are high in fat, sugar and salt, and that is what we need to be tackling. That is what we are going after, not the definition of ultra-processed foods per se.

Lord Allan of Hallam: My Lords, the Minister has told us previously that the Government are going slow on their ban on junk food advertising because they want to give time to manufacturers to reformulate their products. For many of us, this is disappointing because, as long as the food continues to be advertised, there will be excessive consumption. Could the Minister give us a progress update, so that we can get to the point where these foods, which are bad for health, will no longer be promoted—particularly in front of children?

Lord Markham: Yes, as I mentioned previously, our modelling shows that roughly 95% of the calorific reduction that we are expecting will come from the movement of the product positioning. The evidence, almost at the end of the first year, is that this is working. Effectively, the category of non-high HFSS products has gone up by about 16% while products high in fat, sugar and salt have gone down. We know that supermarkets are taking the lead in doing this voluntarily, in terms of the so-called BOGOF, or “buy one get one free”, promotions. Tesco and Sainsbury’s have already stopped that on a voluntary basis and, as I mentioned earlier, the companies are also reformulating their foods. There is a lot of progress in a lot of areas.

Baroness Merron: My Lords, children from the most deprived areas are four times more likely to be obese and three times more likely to have dental decay than those in the least deprived, with sugar as a key contributor to poor health and future prospects. Does the Minister agree that targeting excessive sugar intake at earlier stages will have more impact on the more deprived communities and, if so, how do the Government propose to do this?

Lord Markham: Yes, the noble Baroness is absolutely correct, and that is why in the major conditions survey we have an ambition to reduce sugar intake by 20%, working right across the board and especially with baby food manufacturers. As I set out earlier, there are a range of things that we have already done: the sugar tax reduced intake by 46%, and the movement of the so-called “pester power” has made a big impact. We are seeing companies reformulate food. But it is something we will keep under review, and we will do more if we need to.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I declare my interest as the president of the British Fluoridation Society. Coming to oral health, is he alarmed at the number of intensive dental treatments that children need because of the rise in decay? Could he update the House on any speed up in fluoridation schemes?

Lord Markham: The noble Lord is absolutely correct. As many are aware, the most common reason for six to 10 year-olds to go into an A&E visit is tooth decay. The noble Lord will recall that we passed an SI quite recently expanding opportunities for water fluoridisation. I know that is now increasing and I will happily follow up with the detail in writing.

Mr Jagtar Singh Johal
 - Question

Lord Singh of Wimbledon: To ask His Majesty’s Government whether the Prime Minister raised the case of Mr Jagtar Singh Johal, currently imprisoned in India, with the government of India during his recent visit to that country.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I can confirm that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister raised Mr Johal’s case with Prime Minister Modi on 9 September in Delhi, on the margins of the G20 summit. We will continue raising Mr Johal’s case and any related concerns directly with the Government of India, including his allegations of torture and his right to a fair trial. I regularly raise Mr Johal’s case directly, including with External Affairs Minister Jaishankar on 29 May.

Lord Singh of Wimbledon: I thank the Minister for his reply, but neither it nor the Prime Minister’s response to Questions in the Commons yesterday showed any sense of the outrage expressed by more than 100 Members of the Lords and Commons over India’s abduction and six-year arbitrary detention and torture of Jagtar Singh Johal, a British citizen. Does the Minister agree that it does nothing for Britain’s standing in the world when a British Prime Minister, looking for a favourable trade deal, expresses admiration for a man who was barred from entry into the United States and the UK for atrocities against Muslims in Gujarat, whose Home Minister refers to Muslims as “termites” and whose party is committed to turning India into a Hindu state, to the detriment of minorities?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we raised Mr Johal’s case. We have a wide-ranging relationship with India, and in that regard we have a very constructive dialogue, including, as I have raised directly on a number of occasions, on a wide range of human rights issues. I am sorry, but I do not subscribe to the noble Lord’s description of either India or the Prime Minister of India. I declare an interest as someone who has Indian heritage and is Muslim by faith.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, did the Prime Minister, and indeed the noble Lord the Minister, ask for Mr Jagtar Singh Johal’s release? What actions did they ask the Indian Prime Minister to take?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: As I said in my Answer, we raised the specifics of the allegations that Mr Johal’s family have raised with us directly. We engage with Mr Johal directly through our consular support. We do not believe that publicly asking for his release would be productive or constructive. There is a natural process and a legal process to be followed in India. However, we are raising allegations of mistreatment when they are made. We are also working on ensuring that the family can directly access Mr Johal. Indeed, I visited Scotland only last month, where I met directly with Mr Johal’s father, his wife and his brother.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, following on from that point, we have been here before with the cases in Iran and the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Commons emphasising that the Government needed to have a zero-tolerance approach to the arbitrary detention of British citizens. Do the Government agree and acknowledge that Mr Johal is arbitrarily detained?  I think that previous Prime Ministers did. Is that still the case, as not just Mr Johal’s family but the UN working group has declared him to be? How can Mr Johal expect a fair trial, as the noble Lord has sort of indicated, after a confession was extracted from him by torture?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I did not sort of indicate; I was quite specific: a fair trial is required. It is protected by the constitution of India and the independence of its judicial system. The noble Baroness is quite right that the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has issued a specific opinion about Mr Johal. We take that very seriously and have consistently raised those direct concerns about Mr Johal’s treatment with the Indian authorities. However, as the noble Baroness will know from her own experience, it is now for India to reply formally to that particular opinion.

Lord Sahota: My Lords, after the Prime Minister raised the issue of Mr Johal with the Indian Prime Minister, have the Government given any feedback to Mr Johal’s family in Scotland? Secondly, do the Government think that Mr Johal is a political prisoner?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I am not going to speculate on or respond to the noble Lord’s second question. This is not about politicising; it is a matter for the Indian authorities. They will be following a due process. As I have said before, I have directly raised the issues and concerns raised by the Johal family. It is not just me; my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have done so. As I said in my Answer, the important thing is to ensure that there is a fair trial. Where allegations are made of mistreatment, we will raise them directly. We have a constructive engagement with the Government of India, which allows us to raise these key points and messages directly and candidly.

Lord Collins of Highbury: My Lords, the fact is that until now there has not been due process and there are clear accusations regarding the way Mr Johal has been treated. In the Minister’s letter to Mr Johal’s MP, he said there are risks and benefits to calling for his release. Can he outline what the risks are? That is critical in our relationship with India and its Prime Minister.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is well versed in this. There are risks in any issues or challenges we face with any country. They are based on an assessment of what that balance will be and how it will impact the relationship, but equally on non-interference in its legal process. If a judicial process were under way here in the UK, we would not expect countries publicly to call for the release of an individual or to interfere in the legal process; nor do we seek to do that where a due process is being followed. If there are concerns—I fully accept that there have been delays to various hearings—I assure the noble Lord that I have raised them, because to our mind the various delays are causing further grief to the detainee as well as to the family. It is important that this process be completed as soon as possible.

Baroness Bryan of Partick: My Lords, I am sure the Minister is aware that it is widely believed that intelligence sharing with the Indian authorities contributed to Mr Johal’s detention and torture. Will the Government now acknowledge and apologise for any role that the UK played in his detention and take responsibility for securing his release?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness, in asking the question, is aware that Mr Johal has an active civil litigation case against His Majesty’s Government on this matter and that this is an issue before the court. We must let that process take its course. I am sure the noble Baroness will appreciate that I cannot comment further on the case because of that material fact.

Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, my noble friend mentioned the trade deal which has been going through with India. Can he reassure the House that the human rights dialogue continues and is unaffected? Can he give other examples of cases we have taken up?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I can give that direct assurance. As well as being Minister for our relationship with India I am also, as the noble Earl knows, Minister for Human Rights. We have a very structured engagement on human rights. I am not going to go into specific cases, in order to protect some of those individuals, but we have a very productive exchange. We raise a number of cases as well as broader human rights issues, including the key aspects often raised in your Lordships’ House.

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I rise to raise again the issue of arbitrary detention. I know it is rather difficult for us because we are now facing huge delays in our own criminal justice system, but six years is a long time to wait for due process. We keep being told this by the Indian authorities—when the issue was raised by Boris Johnson some years back, he was given the same reassurance that there was going to be a trial very soon. Here we are, six years on and there has not been a trial, so not surprisingly the family have very little confidence in those kinds of reassurance. The international community has confirmed that Mr Johal has been detained in conditions which suggest that he has been seriously tortured. It really is coming to a point where one is expecting something more than polite conversations with the Indian Government. Were we having more than polite conversations?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: I assure the noble Baroness that whatever the nature or substance of a conversation, I would regard any engagement we have as polite, but politeness does not mean that we cannot be straight and candid in those exchanges. The engagement we have with the Government of India is a constructive friendship; it is a partnership. As I have already said from the Dispatch Box, I fully accept that Mr Johal’s case has continued over a number of years, and I have been engaged directly on this. That is why it is important that we keep it very much on the front  burner, and that is exactly why in the bilateral engagement my right honourable friend had with the Prime Minister of India, he raised this.

Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) (No. 2) Bill
 - Order of Commitment

Baroness Altmann: Moved by Baroness Altmann
That the order of commitment be discharged.

Baroness Altmann: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Motion agreed.

Firearms Bill
 - Order of Commitment

Lord Colgrain: Moved by Lord Colgrain
That the order of commitment be discharged.

Lord Colgrain: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Motion agreed.

Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees Bill
 - Report

Report received.

Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill
 - Third Reading

Motion

Baroness Burt of Solihull: Moved by Baroness Burt of Solihull
That the Bill do now pass.

Baroness Burt of Solihull: My Lords, taking this Bill through your Lordships’ House has been somewhat of a challenge, but I am delighted to see the finishing post coming up—for this House anyway—until it wends its way back to the Commons and the final hurdle under the sure guidance of the honourable Lady, the Member for Bath. I am grateful to everyone  who has worked so hard to bring the Bill to this stage, which has necessitated a great deal of pragmatism and compromise on all sides, not least by the Minister.
The Bill will not return to the Commons as it was when it first arrived in your Lordships’ House but, in essence, it will still protect workers from sexual harassment and it will impose a duty on employers to take reasonable steps to ensure that their employees are protected. Sexual harassment and assault in the workplace, particularly on women at all levels—even, we learn today, on female surgeons—are rife. The Bill will go some way towards rectifying this. We need a change of workplace culture, and this Bill will make a good start.
I thank all Members who have participated in the Bill, including the Minister, the officers of the Government Equalities Office and my legislative adviser, Mohamed-Ali Souidi. The EHRC has also given us excellent advice and will be charged with enforcing the new duty and helping and advising employers. On behalf of the EHRC, I ask the Minister to ensure that the necessary resources are made available to enable it to do this work. An Act is just a piece of paper until and unless it is properly enforced—in this case, that will be no small job. I look forward with great relief to now waving the Bill goodbye for its final stages in the other place.

Baroness Blake of Leeds: My Lords, I express my sincere thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for all the work she has put in, and thank the Minister for her support in the passage of this Bill through the House. The Bill represents an excellent step in the right direction. Clearly, we still have much to do. I also echo the sentiments and hope that the Government will move forward on this and will provide the necessary resources to make sure that all the provisions can be fully implemented.

Baroness Scott of Bybrook: My Lords, I sincerely thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, for her work in taking this important Bill through the House. The noble Baroness has been patient and has shown great pragmatism—I think we have used that word a few times—in the progression of this Bill to help tackle workplace harassment. It is an honour to be here to confirm the Government’s ongoing support. We believe it is important that everyone feels safe and able to thrive in the workplace.
The noble Baroness asked me how the EHRC will enforce the new duty—that is important. The EHRC’s regulatory approach for any new duty will include producing a statutory code of practice based on its current technical guidance in the area and a mechanism for employees and employee representatives to be able to notify the EHRC of breaches and potential breaches of the preventative duty. It will also be able to use powers under the Equality Act 2006 to undertake strategic litigation, investigation and enforcement activity to target systematic non-compliance with the preventative duty, in accordance with the litigation and enforcement policy. On how that will be funded, I will write to the noble Baroness.
The Bill will help the Government to deliver their commitment to introduce the employer duty as part of the violence against women and girls strategy. The employer duty will send a strong signal to employers that they need to take action to prioritise prevention of sexual harassment and, ultimately, to improve workplace practices and culture. I thank all noble Lords and organisations who raised important issues in the debates and discussions throughout the Bill’s progression through the House. I believe this Bill now strikes the right balance between protecting free speech and tackling harassment. While there has been much debate and amendments have been made to the Bill, I think we can all agree that workers should feel safe and be free from sexual harassment in the workplace. Therefore, I hope the Bill can progress with the full support of the House today.
Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill
 - Third Reading

Motion

Baroness Barran: Moved by Baroness Barran
That the Bill do now pass.

Baroness Barran: My Lords, I would like to express to your Lordships how delighted I am that the Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill is finalising its passage through this House. This Bill is a significant moment in transforming access to post-18 education and skills as the next step toward the introduction of the lifelong loan entitlement.
I thank noble Lords for their valuable scrutiny and input throughout the Bill’s passage in this place. I express my particular thanks to Members on the Front Benches, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Twycross, Lady Wilcox of Newport, Lady Thornton and Lady Garden of Frognal, and the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Addington, for their positive engagement and overall support for the principles behind the Bill, as well as for their thoughtful scrutiny and constructive contributions. The debates have been engaging and we have benefited significantly from the deep expertise in this House.
I pay particular thanks to those former Education Ministers and Secretaries of State who provided us with their insight. They include the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and my noble friends Lord Willetts and Lord Johnson of Marylebone.
I thank the many other noble Lords who took part in the debates and who have a wealth of knowledge across higher and further education, including honorary fellows, visiting professors and members of many of this country’s brilliant universities and colleges. I am also grateful to those leaders in universities and colleges who shared their insights with me about the potential  for the Bill, the learning from the pilots and what is needed to make the Bill have a material impact once it becomes law.
Our debates in this House have brought to light a number of areas in which we are all united. It is clear that we are aligned in our desire to create an efficient and flexible system, bring higher education and further education closer together, and make it easier for people to get the skills they need which could transform their lives—whether that might be studying flexibly, training part-time when working, or undertaking a short course more suited to their circumstances.
I reiterate the significance of the Bill and the LLE in driving a transformative impact on post-18 education. The LLE will become the route for people who require student finance for levels 4 to 6 study across higher and further education. In introducing the LLE, we want to do as much as possible to make it accessible and affordable for the most disadvantaged. The Government are committed to the delivery of this programme from 2025 and are working closely with partners and the wider sector to make this happen.
In relation to the specific points raised on Report, I again reassure noble Lords that this Government are committed to monitoring the impact of these measures on the transformation of student finance under the LLE. I also reiterate that the Government do not intend to change the number of learning hours in a credit unless standards in the sector change. Learning hours are, and should continue to be, based on sector-led standards. Finally, I assure your Lordships that the Government remain committed to delivering an alternative student finance product compatible with Islamic finance principles as soon as operationally possible after 2025, and we will provide a further update later this year.
I extend my thanks to the team of officials at the Department for Education, in the Bill team so ably led by Charlotte Rushworth, in the LLE policy team, our legal advisers, analysts and all officials involved in preparing this Bill for introduction for their support, not least from my private office, in engaging fully with your Lordships’ scrutiny. I would also like to recognise the clerks and officials in Parliament for their diligent work in supporting the Bill’s passage through this place. In particular, my thanks go to the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, for her vision in the development of this policy.
While the Bill is the culmination of a large amount of work over a number of years, it is also the foundation of much work that is still to come. I look forward to continuing to discuss these important issues with your Lordships in future. There is no one in this House, or in the other place, who would disagree with the principles behind this programme, and, regardless of Governments to come, that is something we should continue to work with and build upon.

Baroness Twycross: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her constructive engagement on this Bill and for briefing Members at an early stage, along with the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, and the right honourable Member for Harlow. I also thank the Bill  team. Labour supports the Bill’s aim; we support the idea that people can access funding to undertake the learning they need throughout their career. With people undertaking portfolio careers and with continual changes in technology and society, it is no longer the case that what you learn through a traditional three-year degree course is all that you will need in your work for the next 45 years or so.
We had a number of interesting, if concise, debates as the Bill passed its various stages. The Bill is quite limited in scope and Labour still believes that there could have been scope for setting out a more formal review process on a number of its aspects. This would, not least, have helped to safeguard against unintended consequences, whether around distance and flexible learning or employers making a proper contribution to staff development.
There are a number of potential negative impacts on people who are less able to move to study or who are less able to study full-time because of caring responsibilities. From what the noble Baroness said, we hope and believe that the Government intend to monitor and review the lifelong loan entitlement as it is established and rolled out, to make sure that its promise and potential are fulfilled, and especially to ensure that every person in England can have their own promise and potential fulfilled.
I thank the team in the Labour group office, particularly Clare Scally, as well as my Front-Bench colleagues and mentors—my noble friends Lady Wilcox and Lady Thornton. Their patience and kindness in imparting their own lifelong learning and talking me, a relatively new member of the Labour Front-Bench team, through the process of the passage of the Bill has been hugely appreciated.

Baroness Garden of Frognal: My Lords, I apologise profusely to the House for arriving after the Minister started speaking; business moved much more quickly than I expected.
From these Benches, I thank the Minister and the Bill team very much for all their work on the Bill. We remain concerned about how many adults will wish to take on debt in order to improve their learning, and we look forward to hearing updates from the Minister about how many people have done so. From these Benches, we feel that grants would be a much more effective way of persuading adults to learn. But, of course, we are all totally in favour of lifelong learning, and we wish the Bill well.

Baroness Wolf of Dulwich: My Lords, as many of you will know, the number 1 recommendation of the Augar review of post-18 education and funding was for this sort of reform. As someone who was a member of that review and who has spent a considerable part of the last three and a half years on secondment to government to work on the Augar review proposals, among other things, I take this opportunity to thank everyone involved.
I have been jinxed: I have not managed to contribute to any of the fine and informative debates that have taken place on this. They have highlighted some of the challenges that lie ahead. I am enormously encouraged  by the cross-party support for the principle of a funding system that genuinely takes us forward into not just the 21st century but a future where post-compulsory lifelong learning is the rule, not the exception. We now have an opportunity to build on this.
I thank everyone involved in the drafting and passing of the Bill—although we have not quite passed it yet. I particularly put on record my appreciation of the work put in by a large number of officials who have worked enormously hard on this—on teasing out the policy implications and on minimising the amount that had to be put into primary legislation. I thank them and the Minister for her support. It is a little miraculous that we have moved from a major recommendation in 2019 to putting this reform on its way to implementation in 2023. So, on behalf of the Augar review team—and, I think, all the future students of this country—I thank everyone involved in this reform.
Bill passed.

Energy Bill [HL]
 - Commons Amendments

Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Legislative Consent sought.

Motion on Amendment 1

Lord Callanan: Moved by Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1.
1: Clause 1, page 3, line 2, at end insert—“(aa) the interim targets, as defined in section 2 of that Act;”

Lord Callanan: My Lords, with the leave of the House, as well as moving that this House do agree with the Commons in their amendment, I will also speak to the other Commons amendments. I am pleased to bring the Energy Bill back to this House, following on from the many hours of debate that we had during its parliamentary stages in this place. The Bill is essential to the transformation of our energy system and will leverage private investment in clean technologies. It will reform our energy system so that it is fit for the future, and it contains essential provisions for ensuring the safety, security and resilience of the UK’s energy system.
The Government have listened carefully to the points raised, both in this House and in the other place, and we tabled various amendments in the other place to address many of these issues. The amendments have been gathered into three groups. First, there are the amendments making changes to the Bill in response to concerns raised across the House and where we have overturned lost votes. Secondly, there are amendments where we have introduced new government policy. Thirdly, there are amendments addressing minor and technical amendments made to the Bill. I wrote to  noble Lords about this in advance of the debate, and I am grateful for the positive engagement that I have received from across the House.
I will speak first to the amendments in the first group, tabled following constructive engagement with both Houses. First, on the amendment on Ofgem’s duties, no doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, will be pleased about this—and I am grateful to her for her amendments on Report that sought to include the Government’s net-zero targets within Ofgem’s duties. The Government have now tabled a revised version of the noble Baroness’s amendment to ensure that it would not impact the hierarchy and intended effect of Ofgem’s duties, but very much in the spirit of the original amendment. The revised provision amends Ofgem’s existing duty to consider a reduction in greenhouse gases by making specific reference to the net-zero targets and carbon budgets in the Climate Change Act 2008. This reaffirms the Government’s commitment and mandate in achieving our net-zero targets and ensures that Ofgem’s role in net zero is clear.
I turn to the amendments to the hydrogen levy provisions. The Government have included these provisions following consideration of the concerns raised by colleagues in both Houses, particularly the Labour Front Bench. Following careful analysis of the implications, these amendments are similar in intent to an amendment made on Report in this House, but they help to ensure that the provisions work in a way that is practical. Specifically, they remove provisions that enable the levy to be imposed on energy suppliers in Great Britain, ensuring that within Great Britain the levy could be placed only on gas shippers. In the case of Northern Ireland, the amendments are intended to ensure that only gas supply licence holders who engage in gas shipping activities can be subject to the levy. This reflects the different approach to the licensing of gas shipping across Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The revised legislation provides a fairer approach to funding hydrogen, placing the charge higher up the supply chain, with the potential for costs to be spread to sectors expected to benefit most from early hydrogen deployment.
Finally, I remind the House that the Bill will not impose a levy on gas shippers. Instead, it will enable government to introduce such a levy through secondary legislation. Any decision to do so would take into account all relevant considerations, including the affordability of energy bills. The Government will hold a public consultation as usual, before laying regulations introducing the levy.
I turn to amendments on renewable liquid heating fuel. As the recent biomass strategy made clear, such fuels will have a critical role to play in decarbonising our economy. We recognise that these fuels have the potential to play an important role in decarbonising heat in those off-grid properties that are not suited to electric heating. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his amendment and comments on Report on this issue. I am pleased to confirm that we will explore the potential of these fuels for heat by issuing a consultation within 12 months, and we are taking powers in the Bill to support the use of these fuels in heat in future. This amendment would provide government with the powers  to introduce, again by regulation, measures that would impose obligations on heating fuel suppliers to supply specified amounts of renewable liquid heating fuel within specified periods. The Government also commit to consult specifically with the Scottish Government when consulting on the role of renewable liquid fuels in heating buildings off the gas grid and the implementation of a renewable liquid heating fuel obligation. The Government will look to legislate when parliamentary time allows to give statutory force to this consultation requirement.
Amendments 165 and 165A on sustainable aviation fuel commit the Government to publishing a consultation on the options for designing and implementing a revenue certainty scheme for sustainable aviation fuel within six months of the Bill being passed. The Government are also introducing a sustainable aviation fuel mandate from 2025 that will do the heavy lifting to close the cost gap between jet kerosene and sustainable aviation fuel by providing price support in the form of tradable certificates. These policies, along with the £165 million advanced fuels fund, will help to deliver our ambition of having at least five commercial-scale sustainable aviation fuel plants under construction in the UK by 2025.
I turn to community energy. The Government recognise that such projects can have real benefits for the communities in which they are based, and we are keen to ensure that they deliver value for money for consumers. That is why earlier this summer we launched a new £10 million community energy fund, which expands on the success of the previous rural community energy fund to enable both rural and urban communities across England to access grant funding to develop local renewable energy projects for investment. Alongside the proposed fund, we are committing to publishing an annual report and to consulting on the barriers the sector faces when developing projects.
I turn to the amendment that would remove Clause 270 on the prohibition of coal mines, inserted into the Bill by this House. I know the House feels strongly about this matter, but we have considered this clause in detail. We agree that unabated coal has no role in our future power generation mix. The share of electricity generated by coal has already declined sharply, from almost 40% in 2012 to around 2% in 2021, and we do not expect any electricity to be generated from coal after 2024. Although coal will soon cease to be part of our electricity system, there may continue to be domestic demand for it, in industries such as steel and cement and for things such as heritage railways, which can be met domestically. Prohibiting all coal extraction would deny access to domestic coal reserves for these few legacy industries. We do not believe that now is the right time to take such a step.
I turn now to the amendment that would remove Clause 204, which would place a duty on the Government to publish a plan for delivering specific targets on low-carbon heat and energy-efficient homes and non-domestic properties, and higher standards on new homes. We have carefully considered this clause but do not believe it would help to deliver our commitments to improve the energy performance of buildings. Several  action plans that relate to this topic have already been produced, such as the Heat and Buildings Strategy, the net zero strategy and the net zero growth plan. Another plan would simply duplicate many of these previous efforts. The important thing now is to concentrate on delivery. Therefore, we do not believe that this clause is necessary.
I turn to the amendments related to devolution. I am pleased to update the House that the Government have reached an agreement with the Scottish Government to amend the Bill to secure their support for a legislative consent Motion in the Scottish Parliament. This comprehensive set of amendments strengthens the Bill’s consultation provisions and requires the Secretary of State to seek the consent of devolved Ministers before exercising certain powers under Clauses 2, 3 and 293. However, the Government are disappointed that the Welsh Government are currently not supporting a legislative consent Motion for the Bill in the Senedd, which is considering the Bill today. The Government have extended the amendments agreed with the Scottish Government to apply in Wales and Northern Ireland, where appropriate and in good faith. This demonstrates our commitment to continue to work closely with all devolved Governments. I beg to move.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 165A in my name and briefly comment on Amendment 272A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and Amendment 274A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, both of which have the strongest possible Green support.
It is 2023 and we are in a climate emergency. We cannot consider new coal. I am afraid the Minister’s brandishing of heritage railways does not hack it; it is a tiny usage, much as I have no objection to heritage railways. For steel and cement, other nations are moving very quickly away from using coal while we are stuck in the starting gate. On the community energy amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, I had the great pleasure formally to move it on Report and we saw hugely strong support not just in your Lordships’ House but all around the country. Tomorrow we will debate the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. This is a way to allow communities to take control of their energy supplies and provide the framework to set free huge opportunities up and down the land. It is a no-brainer and I urge your Lordships’ House to vote for both amendments.
Moving chiefly to my Amendment 165A, it is worth revisiting the history of the Bill. Those with a very long memory might think back to 19 July 2022, when it had its Second Reading in your Lordships’ House. That was three Prime Ministers back and I really cannot count how many energy policies we have had from the Government since then. We might be in traditional ping-pong now, but the Government’s positions on so many of the issues in the Energy Bill have bounced back and forward so fast within the Government that it is enough to make any observer dizzy.
One of the last-minute additions was this clause on so-called sustainable aviation fuel. If noble Lords look back to the other place, they will see that the level of debate that occurred around this very significant amendment was really very scant. That is why I have  tabled this amendment now, to provide a real opportunity for your Lordships’ House to at least explore the issues and bring out some of the Government’s thinking. I hope we will also hear significant explanations from the other Front Benches on what their thinking is on so-called sustainable aviation fuel. It is often linked with and spoken about as though it is in the same stable as renewable energy, but the fact is, of course, that almost no flights now are powered by sustainable fuel because of supply and cost. Sustainable fuel can be three times as expensive and even for United, the largest consumer of sustainable fuels in the US, last year it comprised less than 1% of its total fuel consumption.
The fact is that so-called sustainable aviation fuels are not a “get out of the limits of this finite planet free card” for the aviation sector. The idea that aviation can keep expanding, or that it should—I shall be coming back to this tomorrow in an amendment to the levelling-up Bill—is, I would say, for the birds: although of course the birds cannot afford the inevitable environmental damage that burning stuff, whatever the stuff is, inflicts.
I can go through some statistics on this. Bain & Company in June published a report assessing the most likely pathways to net zero by 2050 for the aviation sector. The headline was that it can eliminate 70% of emissions from aircraft operations without using electric or hydrogen at scale. Just 5% of emissions reductions come from hydrogen and electric planes in the Bain & Company scenario; the rest is engine efficiency, aircraft efficiency, optimising routes and scaling up so-called sustainable aviation fuels. A 70% reduction is significant, but the Science Based Targets initiative net-zero standard requires a 90% reduction in CO2 across all scopes by 2050 at the very latest. This report suggests that so-called sustainable aviation fuel can meet a maximum of 60% of global jet fuel demand in 2050 in the best-case scenario.
I think it is worth reflecting very briefly, looking to debates in the other place, that we saw both Labour and Tory MPs going further than this amendment does and calling for government subsidies for the sector. We have to set this in the context of the fact that tax exemptions last year saw the Treasury lose £4.7 billion from the aviation sector: that is calculated by Transport & Environment. That could pay for—gosh—more than 40 new hospitals: does that sound familiar? Or it could cover the cost 10 times over of additional medical staff. It is the equivalent of 1% of the income taxes collected by the Government last year. That is the context.
To come to the detail, my amendment simply addresses subsection (6). It seeks to bring in some systems thinking: an approach that does not look simply at the climate emergency because, as huge and pressing as that is, we are actually in a state where we have exceeded so many other planetary boundaries and we face so many other crises and threats that it is absolutely critical that the Government think in a systemic kind of way. If your Lordships want to think about where things went horribly wrong when we did not do that, Dieselgate is the obvious example. That was a case of corruption and fraud, but behind it was the problem of looking simply at the carbon emissions from diesel and not considering all the other environmental effects.
The current government amendment says that the Secretary of State should look at the contribution to the reduction in greenhouse gases. My amendment keeps that but adds the impact on the food system. Your Lordships’ House often debates the fact that food security is a huge and pressing issue of our age, and if we take land out of use for growing food and turn it to growing stock for aviation fuels, we are creating a potentially huge problem for ourselves.
Proposed new subsection (6)(c) says,
“not negatively impact human, animal or plant health”.
That perhaps comes back to the diesel reference, if we think particularly about human health. Burning stuff produces pollutants—that is just practical reality. However, we must also think about plant health. We often talk about using agricultural waste for these sustainable aviation fuels. That agricultural waste could be going back into the soil to contribute to soil and plant health, bringing us to a situation where we are not depleting our soils and then topping them up with artificial fertilisers, particularly nitrogen produced by the incredibly energy-intensive Haber-Bosch process. This is a systems-thinking, joined-up approach.
Finally, my amendment says,
“not negatively impact the availability of feedstocks for other industrial processes”.
The Minister referred to steel and cement, but all kinds of different, innovative steps are being taken to use all kinds of different materials to replace current fossil fuel production. We need to think about where what we call waste could best go.
I am aware of the desire to move this debate on, so I will not speak much longer, but I have just two final reflections. First, we hear a great deal of talk about waste cooking oil in terms of so-called sustainable fuels. Well, I am afraid that your local chippy is not going to take your private jet flight very far at all—let us be realistic about that. Secondly, my mother’s favourite movie was “The Sound of Music”, in which there is a song that goes:
“Nothing comes from nothing,
Nothing ever could”.
All energy use—all fuel—has environmental and social costs associated with its production and use. We have to think in that systemic, holistic way when we think about how we fuel our sustainable future.

Baroness Blake of Leeds: My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 187A in my name. The purpose of moving this amendment is straightforward: we have an opportunity to put in place an enforceable plan of action that will deliver the often-mentioned aspirations to deliver energy-efficient homes and properties. I was sure that the Minister would repeat the line that this is unnecessary—and so he did. But I am afraid that the facts tell a different story. The new clause would enable a plan to be in place, working to clear targets to reduce gas supply in homes by 25% and a 10-year programme to retrofit 19 million homes, costed at £6 billion, with local authority and a community base to deliver.
The facts are these. Since 2010, progress to reduce emissions has stalled. The UK is still heavily reliant on fossil fuels for home heating and industry, and has the  least energy-efficient housing stock in Europe, according to the IMF. Limited progress on energy-efficiency measures has been made worse by poor public information campaigns and the lack of a long-term plan with clear targets, clear technical explanations and little evidence of a financial and structural plan to go alongside. I do not wish to repeat all the comments that have been made throughout the debates on this Bill. However, we have to acknowledge a lack of grip, of urgency, and of serious explanation of the benefits of determined action.
In terms of tackling emissions and meeting legally binding decarbonisation targets, reducing the need for heat must be a top priority. Benefits include: a reduction in the cost of heating homes—therefore, a very positive help to those suffering from the cost of living crisis; a huge benefit to the health of the population by achieving affordable warmth, potentially saving the NHS £500 million a year; and a major contribution to energy security by reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.
These come on top of the potential of delivering economic benefits, providing skilled jobs and high-wage opportunities. Retrofitting poorly performing homes alone could support 190,000 jobs across all regions. Given the strength of opinion on energy efficiency in so many analyses of progress, I am minded to test the opinion of the House.

Lord Teverson: My Lords, first, I congratulate the Minister—he knows that I like to praise his work—particularly on the change in the Ofgem amendment, in that our major regulator will now have a net-zero objective. To me, that is absolutely stark staringly obvious, and the fact that there has been government resistance to it while the Bill has been in this House I find strange, so that is a real move forward. The other thing that is to me stark staringly stupid is that we are talking about opening a coal mine in 2023. That makes no sense at all, and I will go through the reasons why.
It is not just we on these Benches or the Opposition who have that view. Let me quote from the Commons at Report. The then Energy Minister, Chris Skidmore—highly respected in this area and highly respected by the Government, in that he wrote their independent net zero review—said:
“Legislating to prevent the opening of new coal mines simply maintains the commitment that the UK sought to make to the rest of the world at COP26”—[Official Report, Commons, 5/9/23; col. 303.]
That was Chris Skidmore, former Energy Minister, valued by the Government for his net zero review, and by all of us for that great piece of work.
At COP 26 in Glasgow a couple of years ago, which we chaired very successfully under Sir Alok Sharma, we nailed our colours to the mast and led a coalition of countries—I think the government press release says 190—and celebrated the fact that we would phase out coal. What motivates me most to put Amendment 272A forward again is that our international reputation is being shredded by the fact that we are moving ahead on this basis. Let us not pretend that it is not noticed internationally, because it is. Even the White House, under John Kerry, the climate envoy, has remarked on this piece of government policy planning and  Michael Gove’s proposal to open the coal mine. So, our international reputation for climate leadership, which all of us on all sides of this House have been particularly proud of over the years, is being literally trashed by this decision.
That has other effects as well. During a Private Notice Question yesterday, we debated the fact that we had no investor take for offshore wind on the CfD pitch when it concluded last week. That shows that we need rock-solid commitment to net zero in order to attract investment into this country. To me, our saying internationally that we are starting to open coal mines absolutely goes against what we are saying to bring in investment. It questions UK government policy, which is competing with the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States and a green deal industrial plan in the EU. We are trying to get a slice of that global investment, yet our environmental and climate focus is wobbling. That is absolutely wrong.
This amendment would apply to any sort of coal mine, but the Minister mentioned the Cumbrian coal mine, which is what that decision is all about. Let us be clear about that proposition and the company West Cumbria Mining. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has said already, that industry is moving—indeed, must move—competitively towards a much greener stance; for the UK steel industry to remain competitive, it must do so as well. As I understand it, scientists have questions about West Cumbrian coal, including whether its sulphur content is even sufficient for the steel industry. However, the main facts are these: first, the steel industry generally is not that interested in that coal; and, secondly, the company itself says that some four-fifths of the coal will not be used by the UK steel industry, which means that it needs to be exported. Once coal is exported, we have no control over how that substance is used.
That brings me to transport. The argument is that it is better to provide our own coking coal than to import it. However, if we export 80% of this coal, that will put transport costs up because we will have the cost of transporting it to other, international markets.
The one argument that I do have sympathy with concerns jobs. We all know that the region of Cumbria is hugely challenged in terms of levelling up, jobs and income. However, it is completely obvious to me that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, just talked about with regard to Labour’s amendment, we have the ability to provide green jobs and proper energy efficiency. It is clear to me that this coal mine will not be there for a particularly long time, so those jobs will be transient.
I will leave it at that but let me come back to the United Kingdom’s international reputation and our important share in global investment in the green sector. I quote the Government’s own website, which said this after COP 26:
“The end of coal—the single biggest contributor to climate change—is in sight thanks to the UK securing a 190-strong coalition of countries and organisations at COP26”.
That was a proud moment for not just Alok Sharma but the Government. It is being trashed.

Baroness Boycott: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 274B in my name. I draw attention to my interests in the register.
I will speak briefly about community energy but let me just say that I absolutely support the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I also very much support the noble Lord’s words, especially about what this measure is going to do to Britain’s reputation, and his reminding us of where this country was just a couple of short years ago as the leaders of COP, playing a proud role on the world stage; that seems to be in tatters right now.
Community energy is wildly popular in the country—it is extremely popular with all sorts of people. I find it puzzling why the Government are not bending over backwards to make this easier and simpler for people. I do not want to get into the arguments about onshore wind, but surely one way to mitigate communities’ concerns about renewable energy is to give people a stake in it so that it is about not just a bit of money but owning something. My sister has lived on a small island in Denmark for 60 years. The people there are completely energy independent. It was the first place I knew of that had wind farms everywhere. Everyone knows how much electricity is coming in and what it is doing. They have ownership and share prices—that is just the way it has been done, and it is kind of brilliant. Why can we not say, “The local energy we produce off that hill heats my towel rail all year round”? They can report, “I co-own it”, “It has paid to put solar panels on the roof of the community hall”, or “It has paid for energy efficiency advice and deals for the other homes in our village”.
In fairness to the Government, they have acknowledged this, but we seem to have spent an incredible amount of time hand-wringing about the difficulties rather than finding the easy, appropriate ways of supporting it. All that the sector wants is a deal comparable with all the other renewable energy that we have in this country, via a guaranteed minimum price. This gives communities the certainty that they need to raise the funds to go ahead. This is true across so much of the alternative energy sector.
I supported the establishment of the £10 million community energy fund but, quite honestly, that is not very much. If you look in the Evening Standard, you find that you can buy a flat for £10 million within about 100 yards of here. It is not going to go far enough. We need real reform, so the commitment made by Andrew Bowie in the other place
“to consulting on the barriers the sector faces when developing projects”—[Official Report, Commons, 5/9/23; col. 281.]
was particularly welcome.
That is why I have come up with this compromise amendment, which I hope that the Minister feels able to accept. It would give the industry a boost to know that there was something coming down the tracks on an agreed timeframe. A problem that we have seen before is consultations which do not receive a response—or do but with serious delays. That is all that I am trying to avoid with this amendment in lieu, which sets a generous timescale of 18 months for a consultation and a further six months for bringing forward proposals to remove the barriers to community energy schemes. This times nicely with the end of the two-year community energy fund and would avoid a potential cliff edge.
I believe that the Minister will appreciate the need for clarity for the sector and the need to reassure over 300 MPs, including 147 Conservative MPs, who backed the original Local Electricity Bill, which recognised the barriers to community energy and proposed remedies. I therefore ask him to give this house more clarity on timescales, or I may be required to test the opinion of the House.

Baroness Meacher: My Lords, I rise extremely briefly to support very strongly the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and my noble friend Lady Boycott. Regarding the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Boycott, it is crazy that we have barriers inhibiting the development of renewable energy by community energy schemes. This amendment is a very modest proposal to ensure that those barriers are removed within a reasonable timeframe. I hope that all sides of the House can support these three amendments, but I have particularly spoken to that tabled by the noble friend Lady Boycott.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register and record my gratitude to the Minister for the Ofgem amendment. In much more elegant language, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said that it was a no-brainer. It absolutely is, and Amendment 187A is equally a no-brainer. However, before I say why, I add my support to those amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. Particularly in the latter we have a compromise which would really boost a sector of the energy industry that is of great benefit.
In terms of benefits, no one—including the Government —fundamentally challenges the benefits of improving the energy efficiency of Britain’s old, cold, leaky housing stock. They recognise the benefits for individuals and families in terms of health and reduced bills, but it goes beyond that. There are benefits for the UK because improving energy efficiency reduces demand, helps towards our net-zero target and improves our energy security. It is also potentially of benefit to the taxpayer in reducing the huge expense that the Government take on board when energy prices spike. We have seen how much the Government have spent on heating homes and that money going out of the window because of the state of the housing stock. There are also benefits in stimulating the retrofitting industry, which is a national industry. It goes across all parts of the country and helps with the training and then the providing of secure and sustainable jobs.
We have debated this—I will not say ad nauseam, but certainly at length—not only on this Bill but on the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, because of the issues that I was talking about, such as employment and the fact that the poorest people suffer most from the worst homes, in terms of energy efficiency and their health.
As the Minister said, the Government accept the fundamental argument and indeed put money into various schemes, so the issue is whether they need to do more to make sure that we see change. Experience  in this area says that they absolutely need to bring together what needs to be done to have a substantive effect. That has not happened in the past.
We have a history of stop-go policies that have been extremely damaging. We were talking about new housing and building standards; how many houses have we built in the last eight years that are totally inadequate because we reduced the building standards that were set for energy efficiency? We have seen stop-go on that and the warm home scheme start, fail and reduce public and industry confidence. We have seen piecemeal policies, inadequate implementation and a lack of a strategic approach on bringing the policies together, on action and on making the change that we need.
I do not think that this amendment duplicates what the Government have already done; it actually focuses them on an area where we need to do better than we have in the past. If the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, chooses to test the opinion of the House, I will certainly support her.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I very much support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, as I did in Committee. The reduction that she has achieved in her ambitions sits very well with what the Government have said are their ambitions. I would like to see my noble friend supporting this and saying that it is an opportunity. Giving us a tight, but not too tight, timescale to make this happen is a good way to demonstrate that.

Lord Lennie: My Lords, I will make a few comments. First, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and my noble friend Lady Blake for their amendments and will make our position on them clear. Secondly, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, for the welcome changes that he made to the Bill in the other place on the housing levy and on renewable liquid fuels.
We generally welcome the passage of the Bill. It has been a long time in gestation—15 months or more—with hundreds of changes and more today. We welcome all those too, although they probably could have been made earlier.
I turn to the three amendments. First, on coal, the new new Labour Party is no longer in favour of coal. We absolutely support what the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said about the coal industry, and it is time to put this in legislation. It is not enough to say that we are no longer committed to coal; we need to legislate for it and so we will be supporting this amendment.
On my noble friend Lady Blake’s amendment on energy efficiency, I will restate the facts. First, the UK has the least energy-efficient homes in Europe. Domestic energy-efficiency measures have fallen 95% since 2012 and are 20 times lower than they were when Labour was last in power. The Resolution Foundation estimates that 9 million households are paying an extra £170 a year as a result of these failings.
The Minister said that the amendment is unnecessary, because it is partly in the net zero strategy and the Powering Up Britain publication, but this is legislation, and it should state what the Government propose to achieve and by what timescale. Therefore, we support the amendment.
On community energy, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, set out very clearly her proposal to commit the Government to finding out what the barriers inhibiting the development of community energy are, and to bring forward a plan to overcome them. That is a very modest amendment from where we were the last time around, and I can see no reason whatever for the Government not to support it. We will support those three amendments should the Members wish to test the opinion of the House.

Lord Callanan: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I will start on the last issue raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Meacher, and others: that of community energy.
The Government launched the £10 million fund this summer, and it is larger than its predecessors. From what I have seen so far, it has been welcomed across the community energy sector. It will fund projects such as Congleton Hydro, which received £73,500 in funding from the former rural community energy fund—this fund will do a similar job. Thanks to that funding, it is producing affordable, clean and secure electricity from a local weir, enough to power the equivalent of 60 homes. Not only is the project reducing emissions in the area but its success has led to the creation of an annual £5,000 fund for local community projects.
Amendments 274A and 274B aim to commit us to a consultation on the barriers preventing the development of community energy schemes. The amendments set out with whom we should consult, and commit government to bringing forward proposals to remove identified barriers to community energy. But as I referred to earlier, the Government have already committed to consult on the barriers that the sector faces when developing projects. As part of this process, we will of course involve the community energy sector in designing the consultation, through the Community Energy Contact Group. We continue to believe that it is more appropriate to allow the small-scale export market to develop with minimum intervention than to introduce a support scheme that specifies minimum prices or contract lengths for generators.
I know that the House is keen on supporting community energy, and we are the same, but it has to be done in a cost-effective manner, because the cost is borne by every other bill payer. It might be advantageous to certain islands or rural community villages, but if there is a cost in excess of the system, it is borne by every other bill payer in the country. The amendments would place an additional obligation on government to bring forward proposals to remove these barriers within a specified timeframe.
In Committee in the other place, Energy UK submitted evidence recognising the role of community energy but cautioning:
“The additional context of developing roles for future energy system operation, reform of competition in delivery of network infrastructure, and wider reforms of electricity markets including energy retail”
mean that the consideration of community energy needs to take into account this much wider context, rather than considering community energy “in isolation”, and that we need
“to give the Government, the regulator, and the industry time to fully consider”
all those issues. We must be careful not to disadvantage the majority of the population to benefit a very small minority.
We obviously cannot be sure what the consultation will conclude until we have carried it out, so in our view it is not appropriate to make a commitment to do something the outcome of which, and what barriers or proposals will come forward, we do not know at this stage. But I reassure the House that the Government will continue to work closely with the sector and the wider industry on the best way forward.
I now move on to the somewhat contentious issue of coal. Amendment 272A, on prohibiting coal extraction, was raised by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Lennie, and of course the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I was particularly interested to hear the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, because of course we both come from the north-east of England, and there are still sitting Labour MPs in the north-east, whom the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, knows well, campaigning in favour of opening new coal mines. It is interesting that the Labour position seems to be developing from that.
A full prohibition on coal extraction is likely to prevent extensions in existing operational mining—even where that extension could enable site restoration or deliver public safety benefits. It would cut across heritage mining rights in, for instance, the Forest of Dean, which is important to its tourism offer, and perhaps also in Beamish, another area that we know well. Importantly, it would prevent domestic coal extraction projects from progressing that seek to supply industries that are still reliant on coal, such as steel manufacturing. Again, the Labour Party loses no opportunity to lecture us on the importance of the steel industry. That industry is going through a transformation, but many parts of it still require access to coal, so I hope the Labour Party has cleared its position with the steel unions, which I suspect would not support an amendment such as this—I will leave that little domestic argument to different Labour members.
The phasing out of future coal-powered generation, which we do agree with, is a more proportionate response to moving away from coal use than a complete prohibition on coal extraction. Such a ban would deny the prospect of access to domestic coal reserves for future generations, regardless of the circumstances, regardless of the use it could be put to and regardless of the fact that it could perhaps play a role with CCUS in the future.
The Secretary of State for DLUHC’s decision on the mine followed a comprehensive planning inquiry that heard from over 40 different witnesses and considered matters including the demand for coking coal and its suitability. It went into all the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, recommended, the climate change impact and, crucially, the impact on that particular local economy. While the full reasons for the Secretary of State’s decision are set out in his published letter—which should perhaps be read in its entirety—he concluded that
“there is currently a UK and European market for the coal … it is highly likely that a global demand would remain”.
While coking coal may be required for steel production for quite some time—I assume the Labour Party is not proposing that we should close the steel industry down overnight; if so, that would be a fairly radical policy change from all that it has said before—to support the decarbonisation of that industry through its transition period, as well as other industries that still rely on coking coal, we have already put in place the £315 million industrial energy transformation fund. We think that is a better way to help industry move away from coal in the future, rather than just banning their fuel source, because you would be banning British coal—you would not be banning coal; you would just import those same supplies produced by miners in other parts of the world. This helps business, in our view, with their high energy use, to cut their energy bills and reduce their carbon emissions through investing in energy efficiency and low-carbon technologies—that is a more constructive way to proceed.
On sustainable aviation fuel, again the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, got excited and condemned us for something that we are not doing. Sustainable aviation fuel is the most developed technology pathway for aviation decarbonisation and will play a key role along with the other technologies as outlined in the jet zero strategy. Many experts view sustainable aviation fuel as the only alternative to kerosene for long-haul flights up until 2050. If the noble Baroness does not want that, she should have the courage of her convictions and say to people that what the Greens really want to do is to ban flying completely, to prevent people going on business or on their holidays. If that is her agenda, she should say so, rather than try to put amendments forward to prevent us developing those sustainable fuels that we could use in the future to decarbonise the sector.
We recognise that there is uncertainty around feedstock availability and we will continue to work closely with colleagues across government to ensure that the most up-to-date evidence and modelling are reflected throughout the policy design of the SAF mandate and the revenue certainty mechanism. We have already confirmed that the sustainable aviation fuel mandate will not support crop-based biofuels and that SAF must meet strict sustainability criteria. These measures will prevent negative environmental consequences, such as the loss of biodiversity, deforestation and the clearance of land with high-carbon stock that could be associated with the cultivation of raw materials that may be used in certain SAF production.
On energy efficiency and energy statements, of course I understand noble Lords’ desire to go further. I am passionately committed to the cause of energy efficiency, but I do not recognise some of the characterisation put forward in this House. We are making good progress in this country. In 2010, some 14% of UK homes were at EPC band C or above. Now it almost 50%. We have a particularly difficult problem because we have the oldest housing stock in Europe, but we are making progress on this matter. We could go further and faster, and we are endeavouring to do so, but we do have a good record in this country. I want to put that on the record before I talk about the specific issues.
As I referred to in my earlier remarks, the Government have already stated their ambitions, covering the points in the amendment in the heating and building strategy, our net zero strategy and the net zero growth plan. We have already consulted on improving standards in the private rented sector and we continue to refine the policy design to ensure that the burden of energy-efficiency improvements is fair and proportionate for both landlords and tenants. This is not an easy area to legislate in, because we want to make sure that there is still a decent supply of rental properties in many parts of the country—already we are seeing landlords withdraw from the market. So it is an important policy to get right.
In the 2020 Energy White Paper, the Government committed that the trajectory for minimum energy-efficiency standards for non-domestic rented buildings should be EPC band B by 2030, where that is cost effective. The Government will publish a full technical consultation for the future homes standard later this year and we intend to introduce the necessary legislation in 2024, ahead of full implementation in 2025. Furthermore, the Government already consult with the Climate Change Committee and we will respond to its progress report later this year. I thank the noble Baroness for raising these matters but, for the reasons I have set out, the Government cannot support her amendment.
Motion on Amendment 1 agreed.

Motion on Amendment 2

Lord Callanan: Moved by Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 2.
2: Clause 2, page 4, line 14, after “repeals” insert “or revocations”

Lord Callanan: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will speak also to the other amendments in this group. The Government introduced amendments on Report in the Commons to commence further provisions of the Bill on Royal Assent. These amendments will ensure that key secondary legislation can progress at the pace required for the department’s policy objectives to be met.
The remaining government amendments are technical and minor in nature. They relate to existing policies already in the Bill. I wrote to noble Lords about these amendments, setting out what they do and our intentions behind them. Therefore, the House will forgive me if I do not speak to every amendment in detail; I will instead recap the key amendments we sought to make in the other place.
In general, the amendments have been made to improve the clarity, precision and consistency of the Bill. In Part 1, we have amended the definition of a carbon capture entity to include direct air capture projects, with the intention of supporting such projects that bolster our greenhouse gas removals efforts, as set out in the net zero strategy.
In Part 2, we have tabled amendments to the definitions of hydrogen production revenue support contract and carbon capture revenue support contract so that, while  contracts can be offered only to eligible low-carbon hydrogen producers and eligible carbon capture entities, after the point of contract signature it is for the contracts to set the parameters of the ongoing support that they provide. This will help ensure that projects and their investors are clear on the terms of their support. That should inspire confidence in this new regime.
We have amended Part 5, on the independent system operator and planner, to limit the breadth of its efficiency and economy objective and clarify the definitions of ISOP functions in the Bill. These changes leave the ISOP with a mission that is more clearly defined but also flexible enough to accommodate wider developments in energy regulation. They should also help to reduce the risk of the ISOP being distracted from its core purposes and potentially incurring unnecessary costs to customers.
Part 12 on the offshore wind environmental improvement package has been amended to make clear that the clauses apply to all infrastructure in the UK marine area used or intended for use in connection with an offshore wind farm and in connection with the conveyance of electricity generated by such wind farms. Further amendments have been made on the energy performance of premises, petroleum production licensing, the disposal of radioactive waste and compensation for nuclear damage, as well as other minor drafting and clarificatory amendments. I hope noble Lords will agree that they are necessary amendments that improve the Bill. I beg to move.
Motion on Amendment 2 agreed.

Motion on Amendments 3 to 16

Lord Callanan: Moved by Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 3 to 16.
3: Clause 2, page 4, line 19, at end insert—“(7A) But regulations made by virtue of subsection (7)(a) may not make provision amending (or repealing or revoking) any provision of— (a) an Act of the Scottish Parliament, or an instrument made under such an Act, unless the Scottish Ministers have consented to the making of that provision;(b) a Measure or Act of Senedd Cymru, or an instrument made under such a Measure or Act, unless the Welsh Ministers have consented to the making of that provision;(c) Northern Ireland legislation, or an instrument made under Northern Ireland legislation, unless the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland has consented to the making of that provision.”
4: Clause 6, page 7, line 39, at end insert “, and(b) consider any representations which are duly made and not withdrawn.”
5: Clause 8, page 9, line 10, after “repeals” insert “or revocations”
6: Clause 8, page 9, line 14, at end insert—“(2A) Before making regulations under this section containing provision within devolved competence, the Secretary of State must give notice to each relevant devolved authority—(a) stating that the Secretary of State proposes to make regulations under this section, and(b) specifying the period (of not less than 28 days from the date on which the notice is given) within which representations may be made with respect to the provision within the relevant devolved competence, and must consider any representations duly made and not withdrawn.  (2B) For the purposes of this section “relevant devolved authority” means—(a) the Scottish Ministers, if the regulations contain provision within Scottish devolved competence;(b) the Welsh Ministers, if the regulations contain provision within Welsh devolved competence;(c) the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland, if the regulations contain provision within Northern Ireland devolved competence;and “the relevant devolved competence”, in relation to a relevant devolved authority, is to be construed accordingly.(2C) For the purposes of this section, provision—(a) is within Scottish devolved competence if it would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament;(b) is within Welsh devolved competence if it would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if it were contained in an Act of the Senedd (ignoring any requirement for the consent of a Minister of the Crown imposed under Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006);(c) is within Northern Ireland devolved competence if it—(i) would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if it were contained in an Act of that Assembly, and (ii) would not, if it were contained in a Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly, result in the Bill requiring the consent of the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998;and references to provision being within devolved competence are to provision that is within Scottish, Welsh or Northern Ireland devolved competence.”
7: Clause 9, page 9, line 32, at end insert “and(b) specify a period of not less than 28 days within which representations or objections with respect to the proposed regulations may be made,and the Secretary of State must consider any representations or objections which are duly made and not withdrawn.”
8: Clause 9, page 10, line 5, at end insert “, and(b) sending a copy of the notice to—(i) the Scottish Ministers, if an activity that would be authorised by the proposed licence is within Scottish devolved competence;(ii) the Welsh Ministers, if an activity that would be authorised by the licence is within Welsh devolved competence;(iii) the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland, if an activity that would be authorised by the licence is within Northern Ireland devolved competence.(5A) Section 17(4) (activities authorised by a licence: devolved competence) applies for the purposes of subsection (5)(b) of this section as it applies for the purposes of section 17.”
9: Clause 9, page 10, line 15, leave out subsection (10) and insert—“(10) For the purposes of this section “appropriate devolved authority”, in relation to regulations, means—(a) the Scottish Ministers, if the regulations contain provision within Scottish devolved competence;(b) the Welsh Ministers, if the regulations contain provision within Welsh devolved competence;(c) the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland, if the regulations contain provision within Northern Ireland devolved competence.(10A) For the purposes of this section, provision—(a) is within Scottish devolved competence if it would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament;(b) is within Welsh devolved competence if it would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if it were contained in an Act of the Senedd (ignoring any requirement for the consent of a Minister of the Crown imposed under Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006);  (c) is within Northern Ireland devolved competence if it—(i) would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if it were contained in an Act of that Assembly, and (ii) would not, if it were contained in a Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly, result in the Bill requiring the consent of the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.”
10: Clause 10, page 11, line 12, leave out “consult” and insert “give notice to”
11: Clause 10, page 11, line 12, at end insert—“(a) stating that the Secretary of State proposes to make regulations under this section, and(b) specifying the period (of not less than 28 days from the date on which the notice is given) within which representations must be made with respect to the proposed provisions,and must consider any representations duly made and not withdrawn.”
12: Clause 13, page 15, line 40, at end insert “and(iii) the appropriate devolved authorities (if any).”
13: Clause 13, page 16, line 31, at end insert—“(12) For the purposes of this section the “appropriate devolved authorities” are—(a) the Welsh Ministers, if provision making the modifications proposed in the notice under subsection (2) would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if it were contained in an Act of the Senedd (ignoring any requirement for the consent of a Minister of the Crown imposed under Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006);(b) the Scottish Ministers, if provision making the modifications proposed in that notice would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament;(c) the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland, if provision making the modifications proposed in that notice—(i) would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if it were contained in an Act of that Assembly, and(ii) would not, if it were contained in a Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly, result in the Bill requiring the consent of the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.”
14: Clause 19, page 20, line 28, leave out quotegraph (b) and insert— “(b) send a copy of the notice to—the Scottish Ministers, if an activity authorised by the licence is within Scottish devolved competence,the Welsh Ministers, if an activity authorised by the licence is within Welsh devolved competence,the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland, if an activity authorised by the licence is within Northern Ireland devolved competence,(iv) the Oil and Gas Authority, and(v) such other persons as the economic regulator considers are likely to be affected by the decision, and”
15: Clause 19, page 20, line 31, at end insert—“(1A) Section 17(4) (activities authorised by a licence: devolved competence) applies for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) of this section as it applies for the purposes of section 17.”
16: Clause 39, page 35, line 4, at end insert—“(5A) The economic regulator must send a copy of any notice given by it under subsection (4) to—(a) the Welsh Ministers,(b) the Scottish Ministers, and(c) the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland.”
Motion on Amendments 3 to 16 agreed.

Motion on Amendment 17

Lord Callanan: Moved by Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 17.
17: Clause 56, page 50, line 15, at end insert—““carbon dioxide transport and storage counterparty” has the meaning given by section 59(3);“carbon dioxide transport and storage revenue support contract” has the meaning given by section 59(2);”

Lord Callanan: My Lords, with the leave of the House I will speak also to the other amendments in this group, which concern new policy that was introduced in the other place. I turn first to the amendments on hydrogen transport and storage infrastructure. These amendments will enable business models to be brought forward to provide investors with the long-term revenue certainty that they will need to establish and scale up the deployment of hydrogen transport and storage infrastructure. I am sure this will be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who spoke about this earlier in the Bill’s passage.
The development of this infrastructure represents the critical next step in the growth of the hydrogen economy to support the Government’s ambition to have up to 10 gigawatts of low-carbon hydrogen production capacity by 2030. The business models are intended to help overcome the key barriers to investment in this infrastructure, such as high capital costs, lengthy development lead times and uncertain financial investment returns in what is a very nascent market.
Next, on carbon capture storage information and samples, the amendments support the role of the North Sea Transition Authority—NSTA—as the regulator of carbon dioxide storage in the UK continental shelf. They achieve this by ensuring that it has the relevant powers to access and share information and samples collected through relevant carbon-storage activities. This reflects similar powers already held by the NSTA for the petroleum industry and will enhance knowledge sharing across the carbon capture, usage and storage industry. It will support innovation for the effective utilisation of the UK’s geological storage potential and help encourage private investment in the UK’s growing green economy.
The Government have also tabled amendments relating to Great British Nuclear. These amendments will enable GBN to support government in rebuilding our civil nuclear industry and facilitating the delivery of nuclear projects to achieve our net-zero ambitions. GBN will play a critical role in strengthening the UK’s energy security. By legislating for GBN, we are working to undo decades of underinvestment and inspire trust in the UK civil nuclear industry, restoring the global leadership that the UK used to have in civil nuclear power.
I move on to discuss the amendments to provide relief on network charging for energy-intensive industries. High industrial electricity prices are one of the key barriers that inhibit the most carbon-intensive sectors from adopting greener technology. The measures deliver on a fundamental element of the British industry  supercharger set out in February. These amendments will give the Government the powers to deliver a scheme that will provide relief on electricity network charges for Britain’s strategic energy-intensive industries. It will bring electricity prices for these UK businesses in line with some of their global competitors, thereby helping to preserve thousands of jobs and investment and enabling greater electrification of industrial processes, removing one of the major barriers to decarbonisation. I beg to move.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 259A to 271A inclusive; your Lordships will be pleased to know that I do not intend to speak to each one individually. For technical reasons these had to be split up but, essentially, this is a chance for your Lordships’ House to reconsider again the whole Great British Nuclear introduction that the Minister just outlined.
This debate follows on in many ways from that secured for last Thursday by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, about nuclear power. I will not revisit all the many issues raised there, although I note that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, expressed rightful and strong scepticism about the progress of both Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C, on cost and other factors. There is also the continuing cost of the clean-up of dinosaur technology from the last century of £260 billion, and issues of waste that we have still not tackled.
I said that I will not go through these amendments one by one, but I do want to speak to Amendment 262A, which disagrees with the financial assistance. In our discussion yesterday on the failure of the offshore wind contract for difference bidding process, the Minister said my suggestion that we should look at a higher strike price for offshore wind was not thinking about the bill payer. I do not know how many Members of your Lordships’ House have looked closely at the detail of government Amendment 262, but it is utterly an open slather:
“The Secretary of State may provide financial assistance … to facilitate the design, construction, commissioning and operation of nuclear energy generation”.
Proposed new subsection (2) says that this assistance
“may be provided … by way of grant, loan, guarantee or indemnity … the acquisition of shares … the acquisition of … assets … a contract, or … by incurring expenditure for the benefit of the person assisted”.
Proposed new subsection (3) says that the assistance may be considered “without interest”—it goes on and on. I will not go through the whole lot, but basically this allows the Secretary of State the open slather to do whatever they like to fund nuclear—and one thing we know about nuclear energy generation is that it costs, and the cost just keeps going up.
I am afraid there is currently a great deal of speculation. Many people accept that, essentially, Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C are ongoing disasters. We have this wonderful new idea of small-scale nuclear plants scattered all over the countryside, as a noble Lord suggested in last Thursday’s debate. Really, my Lords, how realistic is this? We are talking about something that simply does not scale down.
I am aware of the desire of your Lordships’ House to move on to votes, but I want to quote one person who perhaps has a different perspective from mine. Markus Krebber, the chief executive of RWE, suggests that investors should not and will not back nuclear plants. This comes back to the issue of finance. If there will not be private money coming in, we are talking about massive sums of government money. He told the Australian Financial Review:
“I would have a big question mark whether building new ones is really a good strategy, because if you look at the cost overruns and the delays, I think purely a renewables-based energy system including the necessary storage is probably in most of the regions already today cheaper than new nuclear”.
I think that is unarguable.
I will briefly address the issue of Sizewell C. We are talking as Japanese fishermen around the Fukushima nuclear plant suffer massive economic loss as a result of the dumping of wastewater into the sea there. In Suffolk we will see the local economy facing massive loss if Sizewell C goes ahead. Studies by the Suffolk Coast destination management organisation show that visitors would stay away, losing the tourism industry up to £40 million a year and an estimated 400 jobs.
If we look at the environmental impacts of the proposed Sizewell C, we can see that it is opposed by both the RSPB and the Suffolk Wildlife Trust. The site is surrounded by protected wildlife habitats. When it comes to water, the Planning Inspectorate was unable to recommend that Sizewell C be granted planning consent due to the lack of an identified long-term supply of potable water. There is a huge problem with access to the site. It will require a 60-metre cut-off wall so that it can be dewatered and existing soil can be swapped out for more suitable material and huge, as yet undesigned, sea defences. Looking at the state of our climate now, we are seeing significant runaway with very serious potential risks in the impact on our sea levels. I note that Cefas said that
“it is generally only possible to predict detailed changes to the coastline over the next 10 years”.
I have focused a little on Sizewell C and the deep uncertainties and concern because of the point about money. Under the government amendment, we are letting a Government go ahead and do whatever they like and spend whatever they like on a project that is so deeply problematic.

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard: The Minister waxed lyrical about the scheme to provide subsidies for energy-intensive industries. We were deeply moved by his enthusiasm. He was silent on the clause that follows. He was talking about Clause 177, but Clause 178 sets out how the subsidies are to be paid for—by levies on all electricity users. I do not want this moment to pass without making the old-fashioned comment that I think it is best that subsidies are paid for out of taxation, rather than by levies.
Subsidies are a political decision by the Government; they are absolutely entitled to make those political decisions. But all electricity users are, at the moment, suffering from the political decision to instruct Ofgem to prioritise competition, which has led to the collapse  of more than 30 supply companies. The costs of these collapses are being borne by us all in the levies on our electricity bills. You can debate whether it is honest or dishonest for political decisions to be paid for in a concealed fashion of this kind, but what is certain is that it is regressive. I am therefore slightly less enthusiastic about the combination of Amendments 177 and 178 than the Minister was about Amendment 177.

Lord Lennie: All I would like to say is that, in response to the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, we are interested in keeping the lights on and we are interested in nuclear being part of the mix of fuels that will keep the electricity going, particularly now that coal will no longer be part of the electricity production in this country.

Lord Callanan: I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I will first deal directly with the points by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. What should I say about this? He is, of course, prescient in his observations, but this has been a long-standing policy—effectively of the Treasury, which is unwilling to fund many of these policies from general taxation. Therefore, a lot of previous subsidies, such as the warm home discount, are levied on energy bills. That has been a long-standing policy through a number of Governments and different Treasuries. I wish the noble Lord luck in his campaign to change the mind of His Majesty’s Treasury on these matters.
Moving on to the other issues, let me deal first with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. The problem for the Greens on this is that any sensible energy system in the UK—this is recognised also by the Opposition and we are grateful for their support—needs nuclear power, because it is a source of carbon-free electricity. Of course, many Greens, the more progressive Greens who have looked at our energy system properly, also support the use of nuclear power. I would point the noble Baroness to a very interesting website that I was looking at, called Greens for Nuclear Energy. This is a statement from a series of members of the Green Party who take a sensible and progressive view about this. Looking at the needs of the energy supply system and the need for decarbonisation, they have come to the same conclusion as many other sensible experts: that there is a need for nuclear power in this country.
The website says:
“Greens For Nuclear Energy seek to influence the Green movement’s key organisations and institutions”
in favour of nuclear energy because
“We need every available low carbon power source to combat catastrophic climate change”.
They therefore believe that
“the increasingly urgent need to deal decisively with our emerging climate crisis makes continued opposition to nuclear energy irrational for environmentalists and reduces our chances of averting a climate catastrophe.”
Perhaps the noble Baroness would want to go away and look at some of the more sensible members of her own party.
The invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent rise in global energy prices have demonstrated the paramount importance of accelerating our homegrown power and strengthening our national energy security. This is  in addition to the significant contribution, as I have just said, that nuclear would make to achieving our net-zero objectives because it is very low carbon. Nuclear technology generates zero direct carbon or other greenhouse gas emissions and has one of the lowest life cycle emission rates among generating technologies. The Committee on Climate Change, the International Energy Agency and the UN Economic Commission for Europe—alongside some sensible Green members—have all highlighted the role that new nuclear electricity generating capacity, in partnership with renewables, can play as part of our diverse energy mix while helping us to achieve net zero.
Great British Nuclear will de-risk new nuclear developments by, among other things, co-funding selected technologies through their development. This will provide greater certainty for investors to develop projects over the long term required to deliver new nuclear generation capacity on to the electricity grid. We intend to fund Great British Nuclear’s initial operating costs via grant in aid. It will be subject to standard NDPB reporting and accountability requirements, which will be set out in Great British Nuclear’s framework document.
The terms of investment in development projects will be bespoke and negotiated on an individual basis. The key goal will be to deliver on the Government’s commitment to increase nuclear energy capacity in Britain, while of course ensuring, as always, value for money for the taxpayer and the bill payer. We are legislating to ensure that Great British Nuclear has the long-term operational mandate needed to carry out the role that government intend for it. The amendments set out the framework within which Great British Nuclear shall operate in facilitating the deployment of nuclear reactors in Britain.
I spoke earlier about the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. The EII support levy, like the other measures in the British Industry Supercharger, would simply constitute a rebalancing of existing electricity costs away from EIIs and on to other energy users, who have traditionally received more protection from higher energy prices than some in industry.
At the end of these debates, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed. In particular, I thank my colleague in the other place, Andrew Bowie, for guiding the Bill through the House of Commons. I also thank the department’s Bill team and all the other policy and legal officials across various government departments who have been involved in this huge and landmark piece of legislation. They who have worked tirelessly to deliver it. I particularly thank the House authorities, parliamentary staff, clerks and doorkeepers, and all noble Lords who have contributed to the evolution of this landmark Bill.
Amendment 17 agreed.

Lord Geddes: We now come to the largest single group I have come across in 23 years.

Motion on Amendments 18 to 164

Moved by Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 18 to 164.
18: Clause 56, page 50, leave out lines 16 to 19
19: Clause 56, page 50, line 21, leave out “63(3)” and insert “64(4)”
20: Clause 56, page 50, line 21, at end insert—
““eligible hydrogen storage provider” is to be interpreted in accordance with section (Direction to offer to contract with eligible hydrogen storage provider)(4);
“eligible hydrogen transport provider” is to be interpreted in accordance with section (Direction to offer to contract with eligible hydrogen transport provider)(4)”
21: Clause 56, page 50, line 23, for “61(3)” substitute “62(4)”
22: Clause 56, page 50, line 24, at beginning insert “GB”
23: Clause 56, page 50, leave out lines 26 to 29
24: Clause 56, page 50, line 36, at end insert—
““hydrogen storage counterparty” has the meaning given by section (Designation of hydrogen storage counterparty)(3);
“hydrogen storage provider” has the meaning given by section (Designation of hydrogen storage counterparty)(7);
“hydrogen storage revenue support contract” has the meaning given by section (Designation of hydrogen storage counterparty)(2);
“hydrogen transport counterparty” has the meaning given by section (Designation of hydrogen transport counterparty)(3);
“hydrogen transport provider” has the meaning given by section (Designation of hydrogen transport counterparty)(7);
“hydrogen transport revenue support contract” has the meaning given by section (Designation of hydrogen transport counterparty)(2);”
25: Clause 56, page 50, line 37, at end insert—
““Northern Ireland gas shipper” means a person who holds a licence under Article 8(1)(c) of the Gas (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/275 (N.I. 2)) and who in the opinion of the Secretary of State carries on an activity which is similar to an activity that (in Great Britain) may be authorised by a licence under section 7A(2) of the Gas Act 1986;”
26: Clause 56, page 51, leave out lines 3 to 6
27: Clause 57, page 51, line 16, after “a” insert “carbon dioxide”
28: Clause 57, page 51, line 16, at end insert—
“(aa) a hydrogen transport revenue support contract (see section (Designation of hydrogen transport counterparty)(2)),
(ab) a hydrogen storage revenue support contract (see section (Designation of hydrogen storage counterparty)(2)),”
29: 29 Clause 57, page 52, line 5, after “60(3),” insert “(Direction to offer to contract with eligible hydrogen transport provider)(2) or (4), (Direction to offer to contract with eligible hydrogen storage provider)(2) or (4),”
30: Clause 57, page 52, line 5, leave out “61(3)”
31: Clause 57, page 52, line 6, after “62(2)” insert “or (4)”
32: Clause 57, page 52, line 6, leave out “63(3)”
33: Clause 57, page 52, line 6, after “64(2)” insert “or (4)”
34: Clause 58, page 53, line 2, after “a” insert “carbon dioxide”
35: Clause 58, page 53, line 3, after “counterparty,” insert “hydrogen transport counterparty, hydrogen storage counterparty,”
36: Clause 58, page 53, line 4, after “any” insert “carbon dioxide”
37: Clause 58, page 53, line 5, after “contract” insert “hydrogen transport revenue support contract, hydrogen storage revenue support contract, ”
Clause 58, page 53, line 5, after “contract,” insert “hydrogen transport revenue support contract, hydrogen storage revenue support contract,”
38: Clause 58, page 53, line 8, after “a” insert “carbon dioxide”
39: Clause 58, page 53, line 8, at end insert—
“(aa) a hydrogen transport counterparty (see section (Designation of hydrogen transport counterparty)(3));
(ab) a hydrogen storage counterparty (see section (Designation of hydrogen strorage counterparty)(3));”
40: Clause 59, page 53, line 14, after “for” insert “carbon dioxide”
41: Clause 59, page 53, line 15, leave out ““transport” and insert ““carbon dioxide transport”
42: Clause 59, page 53, line 17, after “a” insert “carbon dioxide”
43: Clause 59, page 53, line 19, after “a” insert “carbon dioxide”
44: Clause 59, page 53, line 22, leave out ““transport” and insert ““carbon dioxide transport”
45: Clause 59, page 53, line 28, after “a” insert “carbon dioxide”
46: Clause 59, page 53, line 30, after “a” insert “carbon dioxide”
47: Clause 59, page 53, line 32, after “a” insert “carbon dioxide”
48: Clause 59, page 53, line 36, after “any” insert “carbon dioxide”
49: Clause 59, page 53, line 38, after first “a” insert “carbon dioxide”
50: Clause 60, page 54, line 3, after “a” insert “carbon dioxide”
51: After Clause 60, insert the following Clause—
“Designation of hydrogen transport counterparty
The Secretary of State may by notice given to a person designate the person to be a counterparty for hydrogen transport revenue support contracts.
(2) A “hydrogen transport revenue support contract” is a contract to which a hydrogen transport counterparty is a party and which was entered into by a hydrogen transport counterparty in pursuance of a direction given to it under section (Direction to offer to contract with eligible hydrogen transport provider)(1).
(3) A person designated under subsection (1) is referred to in this Chapter as a “hydrogen transport counterparty”.
(4) A designation may be made only with the consent of the person designated (except where that person is the Secretary of State).
(5) The Secretary of State may exercise the power of designation so that more than one designation has effect under subsection (1), but only if the Secretary of State considers it necessary for the purposes of ensuring that—
(a) liabilities under a hydrogen transport revenue support contract are met,
(b) arrangements entered into for purposes connected to a hydrogen transport revenue support contract continue to operate, or
(c) directions given to a hydrogen transport counterparty continue to have effect.
(6) As soon as reasonably practicable after a designation ceases to have effect, the Secretary of State must make one or more transfer schemes under section 82 to ensure the transfer of all rights and liabilities under any hydrogen transport revenue support contract to which the person who has ceased to be a hydrogen transport counterparty was a party.
(7) In this Chapter “hydrogen transport provider” means a person who carries on (or is to carry on) in the United Kingdom activities of transporting hydrogen.
(8) In subsection (7) the reference to carrying on activities in the United Kingdom includes carrying on activities in, above or below—
(a) the territorial sea adjacent to the United Kingdom;
(b) waters in a Renewable Energy Zone (within the meaning of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Energy Act 2004);
(c) waters in a Gas Importation and Storage Zone (within the meaning given by section 1 of the Energy Act 2008).
(9) In subsection (7) “transporting hydrogen” includes transporting a compound, of which hydrogen is an element, which revenue support regulations specify as a qualifying compound for the purposes of this section.”
52: Insert the following Clause—
“Direction to offer to contract with eligible hydrogen transport provider
(1) The Secretary of State may, in accordance with any provision made by revenue support regulations, direct a hydrogen transport counterparty to offer to contract with an eligible hydrogen transport provider specified in the direction, on terms specified in the direction.
(2) Revenue support regulations may make further provision about a direction under this section and in particular about—
(a) the circumstances in which a direction may or must be given;
(b) the terms that may or must be specified in a direction.
(3) Provision falling within subsection (2) may include provision for calculations or determinations to be made under the regulations, including by such persons, in accordance with such procedure and by reference to such matters and to the opinion of such persons, as may be specified in the regulations.
(4) Revenue support regulations must make provision for determining the meaning of “eligible” in relation to a hydrogen transport provider.
(5) Regulations within subsection (4) may in particular make provision by reference to standards or other published documents (as they have effect from time to time).”
53: Insert the following Clause—
“Designation of hydrogen storage counterparty
(1) The Secretary of State may by notice given to a person designate the person to be a counterparty for hydrogen storage revenue support contracts.
(2) A “hydrogen storage revenue support contract” is a contract to which a hydrogen storage counterparty is a party and which was entered into by a hydrogen storage counterparty in pursuance of a direction given to it under section (Direction to offer to contract with eligible hydrogen storage provider)(1).
(3) A person designated under subsection (1) is referred to in this Chapter as a “hydrogen storage counterparty”.
(4) A designation may be made only with the consent of the person designated (except where that person is the Secretary of State).
(5) The Secretary of State may exercise the power of designation so that more than one designation has effect under subsection (1), but only if the Secretary of State considers it necessary for the purposes of ensuring that—
(a) liabilities under a hydrogen storage revenue support contract are met,
(b) arrangements entered into for purposes connected to a hydrogen storage revenue support contract continue to operate, or
(c) directions given to a hydrogen storage counterparty continue to have effect.
(6) As soon as reasonably practicable after a designation ceases to have effect, the Secretary of State must make one or more transfer schemes under section 82 to ensure the transfer of all rights and liabilities under any hydrogen storage revenue support contract to which the person who has ceased to be a hydrogen storage counterparty was a party.
(7) In this Chapter “hydrogen storage provider” means a person who carries on (or is to carry on) in the United Kingdom activities of storing hydrogen.
(8) In subsection (7) the reference to carrying on activities in the United Kingdom includes carrying on activities in, above or below—
(a) the territorial sea adjacent to the United Kingdom;
(b) waters in a Renewable Energy Zone (within the meaning of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Energy Act 2004);
(c) waters in a Gas Importation and Storage Zone (within the meaning given by section 1 of the Energy Act 2008).
(9) In subsection (7) “storing hydrogen” includes storing a compound, of which hydrogen is an element, which revenue support regulations specify as a qualifying compound for the purposes of this section.”
54: Insert the following Clause—
“Direction to offer to contract with eligible hydrogen storage provider
(1) The Secretary of State may, in accordance with any provision made by revenue support regulations, direct a hydrogen storage counterparty to offer to contract with an eligible hydrogen storage provider specified in the direction, on terms specified in the direction.
(2) Revenue support regulations may make further provision about a direction under this section and in particular about—
(a) the circumstances in which a direction may or must be given;
(b) the terms that may or must be specified in a direction.
(3) Provision falling within subsection (2) may include provision for calculations or determinations to be made under the regulations, including by such persons, in accordance with such procedure and by reference to such matters and to the opinion of such persons, as may be specified in the regulations.
(4) Revenue support regulations must make provision for determining the meaning of “eligible” in relation to a hydrogen storage provider.
(5) Regulations within subsection (4) may in particular make provision by reference to standards or other published documents (as they have effect from time to time).”
55: Clause 61, page 54, line 18, leave out from second “contract” to “was” in line 22 and insert “to which a hydrogen production counterparty is a party and which”
56: Clause 61, page 54, line 25, leave out subsection (3)
57: Clause 61, page 55, line 8, after “on)” insert “in the United Kingdom”
58: Clause 61, page 55, line 12, at end insert—
“(9) In subsection (8) the reference to carrying on activities in the United Kingdom includes carrying on activities in, above or below—
(a) the territorial sea adjacent to the United Kingdom;
(b) waters in a Renewable Energy Zone (within the meaning of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Energy Act 2004).”
59: Clause 62, page 55, line 28, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) Revenue support regulations must make provision for determining the meaning of “eligible” in relation to a low carbon hydrogen producer.”
60: Clause 62, page 55, line 29, at end insert—
“(5) Regulations within subsection (4) may in particular make provision by reference to standards or other published documents (as they have effect from time to time).”
61: Clause 63, page 55, line 33, after “be” insert “(a)”
62: Clause 63, page 55, line 33, at end insert—
“(b) a counterparty for any one or more descriptions of carbon capture revenue support contract.”
63: Clause 63, page 55, line 34, leave out from second “contract” to “was” in line 1 on page 56 and insert “to which a carbon capture counterparty is a party and which”
64: Clause 63, page 56, line 4, leave out subsection (3)
65: Clause 63, page 56, line 10, leave out from “may” to end of line 17 and insert—
“(a) exercise the power under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) so that more than one designation has effect under that paragraph;
(b) exercise the power under paragraph (b) of that subsection so that more than one designation has effect in respect of any description of carbon capture revenue support contract.”
66: Clause 63, page 56, line 25, after “on)” insert “in the United Kingdom”
67: Clause 63, page 56, line 25, leave out from “on)” to end of line 27 and insert “, with a view to the storage of carbon dioxide, activities of capturing carbon dioxide (or any substance consisting primarily of carbon dioxide) that—
(i) has been produced by commercial or industrial activities,
(ii) is in the atmosphere, or
(iii) has dissolved in sea water.”
68: Clause 63, page 56, line 29, at end insert—
“(9) In subsection (8) the reference to carrying on activities in the United Kingdom includes carrying on activities in, above or below—
(a) the territorial sea adjacent to the United Kingdom;
(b) waters in a Gas Importation and Storage Zone (within the meaning given by section 1 of the Energy Act 2008).”
69: Clause 64, page 57, line 5, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) Revenue support regulations must make provision for determining the meaning of “eligible” in relation to a carbon capture entity.”
70: Clause 64, page 57, line 6, at end insert—
“(5) Regulations within subsection (4) may in particular make provision by reference to standards or other published documents (as they have effect from time to time).”
71: Clause 66, page 57, line 25, leave out “the Consolidated Fund or gas shippers” and insert “relevant market participants (see subsection (8))”
72: Clause 66, page 57, line 27, at end insert—
“(za) a hydrogen transport counterparty to make payments under a hydrogen transport revenue support contract or in respect of liabilities incurred in connection with hydrogen transport revenue support contracts;
(zb) a hydrogen storage counterparty to make payments under a hydrogen storage revenue support contract or in respect of liabilities incurred in connection with hydrogen storage revenue support contracts;”
73: Clause 66, page 57, line 31, after second “a” insert “carbon dioxide”
74: Clause 66, page 58, line 26, leave out from “but” to end of line 30 and insert “a description so specified may not include persons other than—
(a) GB gas shippers;
(b) Northern Ireland gas shippers.”
75: Clause 67, page 58, line 38, leave out “hydrogen production” and insert “relevant”
76: Clause 67, page 59, line 6, leave out “hydrogen production” and insert “relevant”
77: Clause 67, page 59, line 7, leave out “hydrogen production” and insert “relevant”
78: Clause 67, page 59, line 10, leave out “hydrogen production” and insert “relevant”
79: Clause 67, page 59, line 13, leave out “hydrogen production” and insert “relevant”
80: Clause 67, page 59, line 16, leave out “hydrogen production” and insert “relevant”
81: Clause 67, page 59, line 18, leave out “hydrogen production” and insert “relevant”
82: Clause 67, page 59, line 25, leave out “hydrogen production” and insert “relevant”
83: Clause 67, page 59, line 28, at end insert—
“(4) In this section “relevant counterparty” means any of the following—
(a) a hydrogen transport counterparty;
(b) a hydrogen storage counterparty;
(c) a hydrogen production counterparty.”
84: Clause 69, page 61, line 14, leave out “designation” and insert “appointment”
85: Clause 72, page 63, line 35, at end insert—
“(ba) make provision by reference to standards or other published documents (as they have effect from time to time);”
86: Clause 77, page 66, line 34, after “59,” insert “(Designation of hydrogen transport counterparty), (Designation of hydrogen storage counterparty),”
87: Clause 77, page 67, line 3, after “59,” insert “(Designation of hydrogen transport counterparty), (Designation of hydrogen storage counterparty),”
88: Clause 77, page 67, line 9, after “59(1),” insert “(Designation of hydrogen transport counterparty)(1), (Designation of hydrogen storage counterparty)(1),”
89: Clause 77, page 67, line 12, after “a” insert “carbon dioxide”
90: Clause 77, page 67, line 12, after “counterparty,” insert “hydrogen transport counterparty, hydrogen storage counterparty,”
91: Clause 79, page 68, line 23, leave out sub-paragraphs (iii) to (v) and insert—
“(iii) a relevant market participant, or”
92: Clause 80, page 69, line 5, leave out sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) and insert “a GB gas shipper”
93: Clause 80, page 69, line 11, leave out paragraph (b)
94: Clause 80, page 69, line 16, leave out sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) and insert “a person who holds a licence under Article 8(1)(c) of the Gas (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/275 (N.I. 2))”
95: Clause 81, page 69, line 40, leave out “consult” and insert—
“(a) consult the persons mentioned in subsection (1A), and
specify a period of not less than 28 days for the purposes of subsection (1B).
(1A) The persons to be consulted under subsection (1) are—”
96: Clause 81, page 70, line 18, at end insert—
“(1B) The Secretary of State must consider any representations that are—
(a) duly made within the period specified under subsection (1)(b) by persons consulted under subsection (1), and
(b) not withdrawn.”
97: Clause 81, page 70, line 18, at end insert—
“(1C) Before making regulations under section 73(1) (power to appoint allocation bodies) the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Scottish Ministers, if the regulations contain provision that would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament;
(b) the Welsh Ministers, if the regulations contain provision that would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if it were contained in an Act of the Senedd (ignoring any requirement for the consent of a Minister of the Crown imposed under Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006);
(c) the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland, if the regulations contain provision that—
(i) would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if it were contained in an Act of that Assembly, and
(ii) would not, if it were contained in a Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly, result in the Bill requiring the consent of the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998,
and the Secretary of State must consider any representations duly made by persons consulted under this subsection and not withdrawn.”
98: Clause 81, page 70, leave out lines 20 and 21 and insert—
“(a) consult the persons mentioned in subsection (2A), and
(b) specify a period of not less than 28 days for the purposes of subsection (2B).
(2A) The persons to be consulted under subsection (2) are—
(a) the Scottish Ministers, if the standard terms contain provision that would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament;
(b) the Welsh Ministers, if the standard terms contain provision that would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if it were contained in an Act of the Senedd (ignoring any requirement for the consent of a Minister of the Crown imposed under Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006);
(c) the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland, if the standard terms contain provision that—
(i) would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if it were contained in an Act of that Assembly, and
(ii) would not, if it were contained in a Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly, result in the Bill requiring the consent of the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998;
(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(2B) The Secretary of State must consider any representations that are—
(a) duly made within the period specified under subsection (2)(b) by persons consulted under subsection (2), and
(b) not withdrawn.”
99: Clause 85, page 73, line 25, leave out subsection (1)
100: Clause 85, page 73, line 41, leave out subsection (3)
101: Clause 85, page 74, line 17, leave out “(1) to” and insert “(2) and”
102: Clause 85, page 74, line 23, leave out “(1) to” and insert “(2) and”
103: Clause 85, page 74, line 29, leave out paragraph (a)
104: Clause 85, page 74, line 31, leave out paragraph (c)
105: Clause 85, page 74, line 35, leave out “(c) and”
106: Clause 85, page 74, line 36, leave out “those sub-paragraphs” and insert “that sub-paragraph”
107: Clause 85, page 74, line 38, leave out “(1) or”
108: Clause 85, page 75, line 1, leave out “(3) or”
109: Clause 87, page 76, line 14, leave out “any of subsections (1) to” and insert “subsection
(2) or”
110: Clause 87, page 77, line 10, leave out from “1986” to “or” in line 11
111: Clause 87, page 77, line 16, leave out “Smart Meters Act 2018” and insert “Energy Prices Act 2022”
112: Clause 87, page 77, line 18, leave out subsection (14)
113: Clause 88, page 79, line 7, at end insert—
““carbon storage installation” has the same meaning as in section 30 of the Energy Act 2008;”
114: After Clause 89, insert the following Clause—
“Regulations under section 88(1): procedure with devolved authorities
(1) Before making regulations under section 88(1) that contain provision within devolved competence, the Secretary of State must give notice to each relevant devolved authority—
(a) stating that the Secretary of State proposes to make regulations under section 88(1), and
(b) specifying the period (of not less than 28 days from the date on which the notice is given) within which representations may be made with respect to the provision within the relevant devolved competence,
and must consider any representations duly made and not withdrawn.
(2) In this section, “relevant devolved authority”, in relation to regulations, means—
(a) the Scottish Ministers, if the regulations contain provision within Scottish devolved competence;
(b) the Welsh Ministers, if the regulations contain provision within Welsh devolved competence;
(c) the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland, if the regulations contain provision within Northern Ireland devolved competence;
and “the relevant devolved competence”, in relation to a relevant devolved authority, is to be construed accordingly.
(3) For the purposes of this section, provision—
(a) is within Scottish devolved competence if it would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament;
(b) is within Welsh devolved competence if it would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if it were contained in an Act of the Senedd (ignoring any requirement for the consent of a Minister of the Crown imposed under Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006);
(c) is within Northern Ireland devolved competence if it—
(i) would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if it were contained in an Act of that Assembly, and
(ii) would not, if it were contained in a Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly, result in the Bill requiring the consent of the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998,
and references to provision being within devolved competence are to provision that is within Scottish, Welsh or Northern Ireland devolved competence.”
115: Clause 90, page 80, line 36, leave out “(5)” and insert “(5A)”
116: Clause 90, page 82, line 43, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“(5) In subsection (5), for the words from “falling” to the end substitute “which is or has been maintained, or is intended to be established, for the purposes of an activity mentioned in section 17(2)(a), (b) or (c) to which subsection (6) applies.
(5A) In subsection (6), for the words from the beginning to “it” substitute “This subsection applies to any activity which is carried on from, by means of or on an installation which”.”
117: Clause 96, page 90, line 40, leave out from beginning to “before”
118: Clause 96, page 90, line 41, at end insert “the Secretary of State must give notice to the appropriate consultees—
(a) setting out the Secretary of State’s proposed decision, and
(b) specifying the period (of not less than 28 days from the date on which the notice is given) within which representations must be made,
and the Secretary of State must consider any representations which are duly made and not withdrawn.
(10A) For the purposes of subsection (10), the “appropriate consultees” are—”
119: After Clause 101, insert the following Clause—
“Key definitions
(1) This section applies for the purposes of this Chapter.
(2) “Carbon storage licence” means a licence granted, or having effect as if granted, by the OGA under section 18(1) of the Energy Act 2008 (and references to a "licensee" are to a person who holds such a licence).
(3) “Exploration operator”, in relation to a carbon storage licence, means a person who is responsible for organising or supervising—
(a) the carrying on of exploration, within the area within which activities are authorised under the licence, with a view to, or in connection with, the carrying on of activities within section 17(2)(a) or (b) of the Energy Act 2008, or
(b) the establishment or maintenance in a controlled place (as defined in section 17 of the Energy Act 2008) of an installation for the purposes of such exploration.
(4) “Carbon storage information” means information acquired or created by or on behalf of a licensee in the course of carrying out activities under the licensee’s carbon storage licence.
(5) “Carbon storage samples” means samples of substances acquired by or on behalf of a licensee in the course of carrying out activities under the licensee’s carbon storage licence.
(6) “Sanctionable requirement” means a requirement imposed on a person by or under a provision of this Chapter which, by virtue of the provision, is sanctionable in accordance with this Chapter.”
120: Insert the following Clause—
“Retention of information and samples
(1) Regulations made by the Secretary of State may require—
(a) specified licensees to retain specified carbon storage information;
(b) specified licensees to retain specified carbon storage samples.
(2) “Specified” means specified, or of a description specified, in regulations under this section.
(3) Regulations under this section may include provision about—
(a) the form or manner in which information or samples are to be retained;
(b) the period for which information or samples are to be retained;
(c) the event that triggers the commencement of that period.
(4) Regulations under this section may provide for requirements imposed by the regulations to continue following a termination of rights under the licensee’s carbon storage licence (whether by transfer, surrender, expiry or revocation and whether in relation to all or only part of the licence).
(5) Regulations under this section may not impose requirements which have effect in relation to particular carbon storage information or particular carbon storage samples at any time when an information and samples plan dealing with the information or samples has effect.
(6) Requirements imposed by regulations under this section are sanctionable in accordance with this Chapter.
(7) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult each licensing authority that may under section 18(1) of the Energy Act 2008 grant a licence in respect of the carrying on, in a place to which the regulations would apply, of activities within section 17(2) of that Act.
(8) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative procedure.”
121: Insert the following Clause—
“Preparation and agreement of information and samples plans
(1) The responsible person must prepare an information and samples plan in connection with any of the following (each “a licence event”)—
(a) where a licensee is a company, a change in control of the company within the meaning of paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to the Carbon Dioxide (Licensing etc.) Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/2221) (inserted by Schedule 6 to this Act);
(b) a change in the identity of—
(i) the exploration operator under a carbon storage licence, or
(ii) where a storage permit has been granted under a carbon storage licence, the operator in relation to the storage permit (within the meaning of regulation 1(3) of the Carbon Dioxide (Licensing etc.) Regulations 2010);
(c) a transfer of rights under a carbon storage licence, whether in relation to all or part of the area in respect of which the licence was granted;
(d) a surrender of rights under a carbon storage licence in relation to all of the area in respect of which the licence was granted, or in relation to so much of that area in respect of which the licence continues to have effect;
(e) the expiry of a carbon storage licence;
(f) the termination of a carbon storage licence;
(g) the revocation of a storage permit.
(2) “Responsible person”, in relation to a licence event, means the person who is or was, or the persons who are or were, the licensee in respect of the relevant licence immediately before the licence event.
(3) “Relevant licence”, in relation to a licence event, means the carbon storage licence in respect of which the licence event occurs.
(4) “Information and samples plan”, in relation to a licence event, means a plan dealing with what is to happen, following the event, to—
(a) carbon storage information held by the responsible person before the event, and
(b) carbon storage samples held by that person before the event.
(5) The responsible person must agree the information and samples plan with the OGA—
(a) in the case of a licence event mentioned in subsection (1)(a), (b), (c), (d) or (e), before the licence event takes place, or
(b) in the case of a licence event mentioned in subsection (1)(f) or (g), within a reasonable period after the termination of the carbon storage licence or revocation of the storage permit.
(6) An information and samples plan has effect once it is agreed with the OGA.
(7) If an information and samples plan is not agreed with the OGA as mentioned in subsection (5)(a) or (b), the OGA—
(a) may itself prepare an information and samples plan in connection with the licence event, and
(b) may require the responsible person to provide it with such information as the OGA may require to enable it to do so.
(8) The OGA must inform the responsible person of the terms of any information and samples plan it prepares in connection with a licence event.
(9) Where the OGA—
(a) prepares an information and samples plan in connection with a licence event, and
(b) informs the responsible person of the terms of the plan,
the plan has effect as if it had been prepared by the responsible person and agreed with the OGA.
(10) Where an information and samples plan has effect in connection with a licence event, the responsible person must comply with the plan.
(11) The requirements imposed by subsection (5) and (10), or under subsection (7)(b), are sanctionable in accordance with this Chapter.”
122: Insert the following Clause—
“Information and samples plans: supplementary
(1) Where an information and samples plan has effect in relation to a licence event, the OGA and the responsible person may agree changes to the plan.
(2) Once changes are agreed, the plan has effect subject to those changes.
(3) Where—
(a) two or more persons are the responsible person in relation to a licence event, and
(b) those persons include a company that has, since the licence event, been dissolved,
the reference to the responsible person in subsection (1) does not include that company.
(4) An information and samples plan, in relation to a licence event, may provide as appropriate for—
(a) the retention, by the responsible person, of any carbon storage information or carbon storage samples held by or on behalf of that person before the licence event,
(b) the transfer of any such information or samples to a new licensee, or
(c) appropriate storage of such information or samples.
(5) Where an information and samples plan makes provision under subsection (4) for a person, other than the responsible person, to hold information or samples in accordance with the plan—
(a) the plan may, with the consent of that other person, impose requirements on that person in connection with the information and samples, and
(b) any such requirements are sanctionable in accordance with this Chapter.
(6) An information and samples plan prepared by the OGA under section (Preparation and agreement of information and samples plans) may not include provision under subsection (4)(b) for the transfer of information or samples to another person without the consent of the responsible person.
(7) An information and samples plan may provide for the storage of information or samples as mentioned in subsection (4)(c) to be the responsibility of the OGA.
(8) Where a transfer of rights under a carbon storage licence relates to only part of the area in relation to which the licence was granted, the information and samples plan prepared in connection with the transfer is to relate to all carbon storage information and carbon storage samples held by the responsible person before the licence event, and not only information and samples in respect of that part of the area.
(9) In this section, “licence event” and “responsible person” have the same meaning as in section (Preparation and agreement of information and samples plans).”
123: Insert the following Clause—
“Information and samples coordinators
(1) A person within subsection (2) (a “relevant person”) must—
(a) appoint an individual to act as an information and samples coordinator, and
(b) notify the OGA of that individual’s name and contact details.
(2) The following persons are within this subsection—
(a) a licensee, and
(b) an exploration operator under a carbon storage licence.
(3) The information and samples coordinator is to be responsible for monitoring the relevant person’s compliance with its obligations under this Chapter.
(4) A relevant person must comply with subsection (1) within a reasonable period after—
(a) the date on which this section comes into force, if the person is a relevant person on that date, or
(b) becoming a relevant person, in any other case.
(5) The relevant person must notify the OGA of any change in the identity or contact details of the information and samples coordinator within a reasonable period of the change taking place.
(6) The requirements imposed by this section are sanctionable in accordance with this Chapter.”
124: Insert the following Clause—
“Power of OGA to require information and samples
(1) The OGA may by notice in writing, for the purpose of carrying out any of its functions under Chapter 3 of Part 1 of the Energy Act 2008 (storage of carbon dioxide), require—
(a) a licensee to provide it with any carbon storage information, or a portion of any carbon storage sample, held by or on behalf of the licensee;
(b) a person who holds information or samples in accordance with an information and samples plan to provide it with any such information or a portion of any such sample.
(2) The notice must specify—
(a) the form or manner in which the information or the portion of a sample must be provided;
(b) the time at which, or period within which, the information or the portion of a sample must be provided.
(3) Information requested under subsection (1) may not include items subject to legal privilege.
(4) Requirements imposed by a notice under this section are sanctionable in accordance with this Chapter.
125 Insert the following Clause—
“Prohibition on disclosure of information or samples obtained by OGA
(1) Protected material must not be disclosed—
(a) by the OGA, or
(b) by a subsequent holder,
except in accordance with section (Power of Secretary of State to require information and samples) or Schedule (Permitted disclosures of material obtained by OGA).
(2) In this section and in Schedule (Permitted disclosures of material obtained by OGA)— “protected material” means information or samples which have been obtained by the OGA under section (Power of OGA to require information and samples)
or (Sanctions: information powers);
“subsequent holder”, in relation to protected material, means a person holding protected material who has received it directly or indirectly from the OGA by virtue of a disclosure, or disclosures, in accordance with Schedule (Permitted disclosures of material obtained by OGA).
(3) References to disclosing protected material include references to making the protected material available to other persons (where the protected material includes samples).”
125: Insert the following Clause—
“Prohibition on disclosure of information or samples obtained by OGA
(1) Protected material must not be disclosed—
(a) by the OGA, or
(b) by a subsequent holder,
except in accordance with section (Power of Secretary of State to require information and samples) or Schedule (Permitted disclosures of material obtained by OGA).
(2) In this section and in Schedule (Permitted disclosures of material obtained by OGA)— “protected material” means information or samples which have been obtained by the OGA under section (Power of OGA to require information and samples) or (Sanctions: information powers);
“subsequent holder”, in relation to protected material, means a person holding protected material who has received it directly or indirectly from the OGA by virtue of a disclosure, or disclosures, in accordance with Schedule (Permitted disclosures of material obtained by OGA).
(3) References to disclosing protected material include references to making the protected material available to other persons (where the protected material includes samples).”
126: Insert the following Clause—
“Power of Secretary of State to require information and samples
(1) The Secretary of State may require the OGA to provide the Secretary of State with such information or samples held by or on behalf of the OGA as the Secretary of State may require for the purpose of—
(a) carrying out any function conferred by or under any Act,
(b) monitoring the OGA's performance of its functions, or
(c) any Parliamentary proceedings.
(2) The Secretary of State may use information or samples acquired under subsection
(1) (“acquired material”) only for the purpose for which it is provided.
(3) Acquired material must not be disclosed—
(a) by the Secretary of State, or
(b) by a subsequent holder,
except in accordance with this section.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3)(b), “subsequent holder”, in relation to acquired material, means a person who receives acquired material directly or indirectly from the Secretary of State by virtue of a disclosure, or disclosures, in accordance with this section.
(5) Subsection (3) does not prohibit the Secretary of State from disclosing acquired material so far as necessary for the purpose for which it was provided.
(6) Subsection (3) does not prohibit a disclosure of acquired material if—
(a) the disclosure is required by virtue of an obligation imposed by or under any Act, or
(b) the OGA consents to the disclosure and, where the acquired material in question was provided to the OGA by or on behalf of another person, confirms that that person also consents to the disclosure.
(7) References in this section to disclosing acquired material include references to making the acquired material available to other persons (where the acquired material includes samples).”
127: Insert the following Clause—
“Power of OGA to give sanction notices
(1) If the OGA considers that a person has failed to comply with a sanctionable requirement imposed on the person, it may give the person a sanction notice in respect of that failure.
(2) If the OGA considers that there has a been a failure to comply with a sanctionable requirement imposed jointly on two or more persons, it may give a sanction notice in respect of that failure—
(a) to one only of those persons (subject to section (Revocation notices)(2)),
(b) jointly to two or more of them, or
(c) jointly to all of them,
but it may not give separate sanction notices to each of them in respect of the failure.
(3) In this Chapter “sanction notice” means—
(a) an enforcement notice (see section (Enforcement notices)),
(b) a financial penalty notice (see section (Financial penalty notices)),
(c) a revocation notice (see section (Revocation notices)), or
(d) an operator removal notice (see section (Operator removal notices)).
(4) Sanction notices, other than enforcement notices, may be given in respect of a failure to comply with a sanctionable requirement even if, at the time the notice is given, the failure to comply has already been remedied.
(5) Where the OGA gives a sanction notice to a person in respect of a particular failure to comply with a sanctionable requirement—
(a) it may, at the same time, give another type of sanction notice to the person in respect of that failure to comply;
(b) it may give subsequent sanction notices in respect of that failure only in accordance with section (Subsequent sanction notices) (subsequent sanction notices).
(6) The OGA’s power to give sanction notices under this section is subject to section (Duty of OGA to give sanction warning notices) (duty of OGA to give sanction warning notices).
(7) Where the OGA gives a sanction notice to a licensee in respect of a failure to comply with a sanctionable requirement—
(a) the matter is to be dealt with in accordance with this Chapter, and
(b) any requirement under the licensee’s carbon storage licence to deal with the matter in a certain way (including by arbitration) does not apply in respect of that failure to comply.”
128: Insert the following Clause—
“Enforcement notices
(1) An enforcement notice is a notice which—
(a) specifies the sanctionable requirement in question,
(b) gives details of the failure to comply with the requirement, and
(c) informs the person or persons to whom the notice is given that the person or persons must comply with—
(i) the sanctionable requirement, and
(ii) any directions included in the notice as mentioned in subsection (2),
before the end of the period specified in the notice.
(2) The notice may include directions as to the measures to be taken for the purposes of compliance with the sanctionable requirement.
(3) Requirements imposed by directions included in an enforcement notice as mentioned in subsection (2) are sanctionable in accordance with this Chapter.”
129: Insert the following Clause—
“Financial penalty notices
(1) A financial penalty notice is a notice which—
(a) specifies the sanctionable requirement in question,
(b) gives details of the failure to comply with the requirement, and
(c) informs the person or persons to whom the notice is given that the person or persons must—
(i) comply with the sanctionable requirement before the end of a period specified in the notice, where it is appropriate to require such compliance and the failure to comply with the requirement has not already been remedied at the time the notice is given, and
(ii) pay the OGA a financial penalty of the amount specified in the notice before the end of a period specified in the notice.
(2) The period specified under subsection (1)(c)(ii) must not end earlier than the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the financial penalty notice is given.
(3) The financial penalty payable under a financial penalty notice in respect of a failure to comply with a sanctionable requirement (whether payable by one person, or jointly by two or more persons) must not exceed £1 million.
(4) If a financial penalty notice is given jointly to two or more persons, those persons are jointly and severally liable to pay the financial penalty under it.
(5) A financial penalty payable under a financial penalty notice is to be recoverable as a civil debt if it is not paid before the end of the period specified under subsection (1)(c)(ii).
(6) The OGA must—
(a) issue guidance as to the matters to which it will have regard when determining the amount of the financial penalty to be imposed by a financial penalty notice, and
(b) have regard to the guidance when determining the amount of the penalty in any particular case.
(7) The OGA may from time to time review guidance issued under subsection (6)(a) and, if it considers appropriate, revise it.
(8) Before issuing or revising guidance under this section, the OGA must consult such persons as it considers appropriate.
(9) The OGA must—
(a) lay any guidance issued under this section, and any revision of it, before each House of Parliament;
(b) publish any guidance issued under this section, and any revision of it, in such manner as the OGA considers appropriate.
(10) The Secretary of State may by regulations subject to the affirmative procedure amend subsection (3) to change the amount specified to an amount not exceeding £5 million.
(11) Money received by the OGA under a financial penalty notice must be paid into the Consolidated Fund.”
130: Insert the following Clause—
“Revocation notices
(1) A revocation notice may be given only in respect of a failure to comply with a sanctionable requirement imposed on a licensee in that capacity.
(2) Where two or more persons are the licensee in respect of a carbon storage licence, the revocation notice must be given jointly to all of those persons.
(3) A revocation notice is a notice which—
(a) specifies the sanctionable requirement in question,
(b) gives details of the failure to comply with the requirement,
(c) informs the person or persons to whom the notice is given that—
(i) where no storage permit has been granted under the carbon storage licence, the licence is to be terminated, or
(ii) where a storage permit has been granted under the carbon storage licence, the permit is to be revoked,
on the date specified in the notice (“the revocation date”).
(4) The revocation date must not be earlier than the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the revocation notice is given.
(5) A revocation notice may not be given in circumstances where the carbon storage licence to be terminated, or the storage permit to be revoked, in accordance with the notice is one which, on the date the notice is given, the OGA would not have the power to grant.
(6) Where a carbon storage licence is terminated in accordance with a revocation notice—
(a) the rights granted to the licensee by the licence cease on the revocation date;
(b) the revocation does not affect any obligation or liability imposed on or incurred by the licensee under the terms and conditions of the licence;
(c) the terms and conditions of the licence apply as if the licence had been terminated in accordance with those terms and conditions, subject to section (Power of OGA to give sanction notices)(7)(b).
(7) Where a storage permit is revoked in accordance with a revocation notice—
(a) the authorisation granted by the storage permit ceases on the revocation date;
(b) the revocation does not affect any obligation or liability imposed or incurred under the terms and conditions of the storage permit;
(c) the terms and conditions of the carbon storage licence apply as if the storage permit had been revoked in accordance with those terms and conditions, subject to section (Power of OGA to give sanction notices)(7)(b).”
131: Insert the following Clause—
“Operator removal notices
(1) An operator removal notice may be given only in respect of a failure to comply with a sanctionable requirement imposed on an exploration operator under a carbon storage licence in that capacity.
(2) An operator removal notice is a notice which—
(a) specifies the sanctionable requirement,
(b) gives details of the failure to comply with the requirement, and
(c) informs the exploration operator to whom it is given that, with effect from a date specified in the notice (“the removal  date”), the licensee under whose carbon storage licence the exploration operator operates (“the relevant licensee”) is to be required to remove the exploration operator (see subsection (4)).
(3) The OGA must—
(a) give a copy of the operator removal notice to the relevant licensee, and
(b) require the relevant licensee to remove the exploration operator with effect from the removal date.
(4) Where a licensee is required to remove an exploration operator from a specified date, the licensee must ensure that, with effect from that date, the exploration operator does not exercise any function of organising or supervising any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of section (Key definitions)(3).
(5) The removal date must not be earlier than the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the operator removal notice is given.
(6) An operator removal notice may not be given in circumstances where the carbon storage licence under which the exploration operator operates is one which, on the date the notice is given, the OGA would not have the power to grant.
(7) A requirement imposed on a licensee under subsection (3)(b) is sanctionable in accordance with this Chapter.”
132: Insert the following Clause—
“Duty of OGA to give sanction warning notices
(1) This section applies where the OGA proposes to give a sanction notice in respect of a failure to comply with a sanctionable requirement.
(2) The OGA must give a sanction warning notice in respect of the sanctionable requirement to—
(a) the person or persons to whom it proposes to give a sanction notice, and
(b) where it proposes to give an operator removal notice, the relevant licensee (see section (Operator removal notices)(2)(c)).
(3) A sanction warning notice, in respect of a sanctionable requirement, is a notice which—
(a) specifies the sanctionable requirement,
(b) informs the person or persons to whom it is given that the OGA proposes to give a sanction notice in respect of a failure to comply with the requirement,
(c) gives details of the failure to comply with the sanctionable requirement, and
(d) informs the person or persons to whom it is given that the person or persons may, within the period specified in the notice (“the representations period”), make representations to the OGA in relation to the matters dealt with in the notice.
(4) The representations period must be such period as the OGA considers appropriate in the circumstances.
(5) Subsections (6) and (7) apply where the OGA gives a sanction warning notice to a person or persons in respect of a sanctionable requirement.
(6) The OGA must not give a sanction notice to the person or persons in respect of a failure to comply with the requirement until after the end of the representations period specified in the sanction warning notice.
(7) Having regard to representations made during the representations period specified in the sanction warning notice, the OGA may decide—
(a) to give the person or persons a sanction notice in respect of the failure to comply with the requirement detailed in the sanction warning notice under subsection (3)(c),
(b) to give the person or persons a sanction notice in respect of a failure to comply with the requirement which differs from the failure detailed in the sanction warning notice under subsection (3)(c), or
(c) not to give the person or persons a sanction notice in respect of a failure to comply with the requirement.”
133: Insert the following Clause—
“Publication of details of sanctions
(1) The OGA may publish details of any sanction notice given in accordance with this Chapter.
(2) But the OGA may not publish anything that, in its opinion—
(a) is commercially sensitive,
(b) is not in the public interest to publish, or
(c) is otherwise not appropriate for publication.
(3) If, after details of a sanction notice are published by the OGA, the sanction notice is—
(a) cancelled on appeal, or
(b) withdrawn under section (Withdrawal of sanction notices),
the OGA must publish details of the cancellation or withdrawal.”
134: Insert the following Clause—
“Subsequent sanction notices
(1) This section applies where the OGA gives a sanction notice in respect of a particular failure to comply with a sanctionable requirement (whether the notice is given alone or at the same time as another type of sanction notice).
(2) If the sanction notice given is a revocation notice or an operator removal notice, no further sanction notices may be given in respect of the failure to comply.
(3) If the sanction notice given is a financial penalty notice which does not require compliance with the sanctionable requirement, no further sanction notices may be given in respect of the failure to comply.
(4) Subsection (5) applies if the sanction notice given is—
(a) an enforcement notice, or
(b) a financial penalty notice which requires compliance with the sanctionable requirement.
(5) No further sanction notices may be given in respect of the failure to comply before the end of the period specified under section (Enforcement notices)(1)(c) or (Financial penalty notices)(1)(c)(i), as the case may be (period for compliance with sanctionable requirement).”
135: Insert the following Clause—
“Withdrawal of sanction notices
(1) The OGA may, at any time after giving a sanction notice, withdraw the sanction notice.
(2) If a sanction notice is withdrawn by the OGA—
(a) the notice ceases to have effect, and
(b) the OGA must notify the following persons of the withdrawal of the notice—
(i) the person or persons to whom the notice was given;
(ii) in the case of an operator removal notice, the licensee under whose carbon storage licence the exploration operator operates.”
136: Insert the following Clause—
“Sanctions: information powers
(1) This section applies for the purposes of an investigation which—
(a) concerns whether a person has failed to comply with a sanctionable requirement, and
(b) is carried out by the OGA for the purpose of enabling it to decide whether to give the person a sanction notice, or on what terms a sanction notice should be given to the person.
(2) The OGA may by notice in writing, for the purposes of that investigation, require the person to provide specified documents or other information.
(3) “Specified” means specified, or of a description specified, in a notice under this section.
(4) A requirement under subsection (2) applies only to the extent—
(a) that the documents requested are documents in the person’s possession or control, or
(b) that the information requested is information in the person’s possession or control.
(5) A requirement imposed by a notice under subsection (2) is sanctionable in accordance with this Chapter.
(6) The documents or information requested—
(a) may include documents or information held in any form (including in electronic form);
(b) may include documents or information that may be regarded as commercially sensitive;
(c) may not include items that are subject to legal privilege.
(7) The notice must specify—
(a) to whom the information is to be provided;
(b) where it is to be provided;
(c) when it is to be provided;
(d) the form and manner in which it is to be provided.”
137: Insert the following Clause—
“Appeals in connection with Chapter
In Schedule (Carbon storage information and samples: appeals)—
(a) Part 1 contains provision about appeals against decisions by the OGA relating to the preparation of an information and samples plan and appeals against the giving of a notice under section (Power of OGA to require information and samples), and
(b) Part 2 contains provision about appeals against the imposition of sanction notices and appeals against the giving of a notice under section (Sanctions: information powers).”
138: Insert the following Clause—
“Procedure for enforcement decisions
(1) The OGA—
(a) must determine the procedure that it proposes to follow in relation to enforcement decisions, and
(b) must issue a statement of its proposals.
(2) The procedure mentioned in subsection (1)(a) must be designed to secure, among other things, that an enforcement decision is taken—
(a) by a person falling within subsection (3), or
(b) by two or more persons, each of whom falls within subsection (3).
(3) A person falls within this subsection if the person was not directly involved in establishing the evidence on which the enforcement decision is based.
(4) The statement mentioned in subsection (1)(b) must be published in whatever way appears to the OGA to be best calculated to bring the statement to the attention of the public.
(5) When the OGA takes an enforcement decision, the OGA must follow its stated procedure.
(6) If the OGA changes its procedure in a material way, it must publish a revised statement.
(7) A failure of the OGA in a particular case to follow its procedure as set out in the latest published statement does not affect the validity of an enforcement decision taken in that case.
(8) But subsection (7) does not prevent the Tribunal from taking into account any such failure in considering an appeal under paragraph 4 or 5 of Schedule (Carbon storage information and samples: appeals) in relation to a sanction notice.
(9) In this section, “enforcement decision” means—
(a) a decision to give a sanction notice in respect of a failure to comply with a sanctionable requirement, or
(b) a decision as to the details of the sanction to be imposed by the notice.”
139: Insert the following Clause—
“Interpretation of Chapter
In this Chapter—
“information and samples plan” has the meaning given in section (Preparation and agreement of information and samples plans);
“items subject to legal privilege”—
(a) in England and Wales, has the same meaning as in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (see section 10 of that Act);
(b) in Scotland, has the meaning given by section 412 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002;
(c) in Northern Ireland, has the same meaning as in the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1341 (NI 12));
“OGA” means the Oil and Gas Authority;
“protected material” has the meaning given in section (Prohibition on disclosure of information or samples obtained by OGA);
“sanction notice” has the meaning given in section (Power of OGA to give sanction notices);
“storage permit” has the same meaning as in the Storage of Carbon Dioxide (Licensing etc) Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/2221) (see regulation 1(3) of those Regulations);
“subsequent holder” has the meaning given in section (Prohibition on disclosure of information or samples obtained by OGA);
“Tribunal” means the First-tier tribunal.”
140: Clause 102, page 96, line 22, leave out “consult” and insert “give to the appropriate consultees a notice—
(a) stating that the Secretary of State proposes to make regulations under subsection (1), and
(b) specifying the period (of not less than 28 days from the date on which the notice is given) within which representations must be made with respect to the proposed provisions,
and must consider any representations duly made and not withdrawn.”
(6A) For the purposes of this section the “appropriate consultees” are—”
141: Clause 103, page 97, line 19, leave out “, out of money provided by Parliament,”
142: Clause 103, page 97, line 22, leave out “and storage”
143: Clause 103, page 97, line 22, at end insert—
“(aa) storage of carbon dioxide;”
144: Clause 103, page 97, line 24, leave out from “for” to end of line 25 and insert “any activity mentioned in paragraph (a) or (aa)”
145: Clause 103, page 97, line 27, leave out “and storage”
146: Clause 103, page 97, line 27, at end insert—
“(e) storage of hydrogen.”
147: Clause 103, page 98, line 3, leave out paragraph (f) and insert—
“(f) may be provided by the acquisition of shares or any other interest in, or securities of, a body corporate;”
148: Clause 103, page 98, line 5, leave out “take the form of investment” and insert “be provided”
149: After Clause 105, insert the following Clause—
“Key definitions for Part
(1) In this Part—
“designated person” means a person in relation to whom a designation under section (Designation)(1) has effect (and any reference to designation, in relation to a person, is to be construed accordingly);
“designated project”, in relation to a person, means a hydrogen pipeline project in relation to which the person is designated;
“gas transporter licence” means a licence under section 7 of the Gas Act 1986; “hydrogen” means any gas that consists wholly or mainly of hydrogen; “hydrogen pipeline project” means a project involving the construction,
alteration or operation of a pipeline for the purpose of the conveyance of
hydrogen.
(2) References in this Part to the extension or restriction of a licence are to the giving of a direction in respect of the licence under (respectively) section 7(4) or (4A) of the Gas Act 1986.”
150: Insert the following Clause—
“Designation
(1) The Secretary of State may by notice given to a person designate the person in relation to a hydrogen pipeline project.
(2) The Secretary of State may designate a person in relation to a hydrogen pipeline project only if the Secretary of State is of the opinion—
(a) that it is likely to be appropriate for conditions described in section (Scope of modification powers under section (Modification of gas transporter licences by Secretary of State))(1)(a) and (b) to be included in any gas transporter licence held by the person for the purposes of the project (whether or not the person already holds such a licence), and
(b) that the project is likely to result in value for money.
(3) A person may be designated only with the person’s consent.
(4) A designation may not relate to more than one hydrogen pipeline project (but a person who is designated in relation to one project may be designated separately in relation to another).”
151: Insert the following Clause—
“Designation: procedure
(1) The Secretary of State must publish a statement setting out—
(a) the procedure that the Secretary of State expects to follow in determining whether to exercise the power under section (Designation)(1), and
(b) how the Secretary of State expects to determine whether the conditions in section (Designation)(2) are met.
(2) A duty imposed by subsection (1) may be satisfied by things done before the passing of this Act (as well as by things done after that time).
(3) A designation notice must include—
(a) a description of the hydrogen pipeline project to which the designation relates,
(b) the Secretary of State’s reasons for the designation,
(c) details of any conditions to which the designation is subject, and
(d) the date of the notice.
(4) The Secretary of State must give the GEMA a copy of a designation notice.
(5) The Secretary of State must publish a designation notice, but may exclude from publication any material the disclosure or publication of which the Secretary of State considers—
(a) would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person, or
(b) would be contrary to the interests of national security.
(6) In this section, “designation notice” means a notice under section (Designation)(1).”
152: Insert the following Clause—
“Revocation of designation
(1) The Secretary of State may by notice given to a designated person revoke the person’s designation in relation to a hydrogen pipeline project if—
(a) either of the conditions in section (Designation)(2) ceases to be met in relation to the project,
(b) the Secretary of State determines that a condition to which the designation is subject has not been met, or
(c) the person consents to the designation being revoked.
(2) Section (Designation: procedure)(3)(a), (b) and (d), (4) and (5) applies (with necessary modifications) in relation to the revocation of a person’s designation as it applies in relation to the designation of a person.
(3) Where the Secretary of State gives a notice to a person under subsection (1), the person’s designation in relation to the hydrogen pipeline project in question ceases to have effect at the end of the day on which the notice is given to the person.
(4) The revocation of a person’s designation in relation to a hydrogen pipeline project does not affect anything done in relation to the licence by the Secretary of State under or by virtue of this Part while the person was designated in relation to the project
153: Insert the following Clause—
“Grant, extension or restriction of gas transporter licence by Secretary of State
(1) The Secretary of State may exercise the power under section 7(2) of the Gas Act 1986 (grant of gas transporter licences) so as to grant a gas transporter licence to a designated person, subject to subsection (2).
(2) The Secretary of State may only grant a gas transporter licence which authorises the conveyance of hydrogen through pipes for the purposes of the person’s designated project.
(3) The Secretary of State may exercise the power under section 7(4) of the Gas Act 1986 (direction to extend licence) so as to extend a gas transporter licence where—
(a) the licence is held by a designated person, and
(b) the extension authorises the conveyance of hydrogen through pipes for the purposes of the person’s designated project.
(4) The Secretary of State may exercise the power under section 7(4A) of the Gas Act 1986 (direction to restrict licence) so as to restrict a gas transporter licence where—
(a) the licence is or was held by a designated person, and
(b) the restriction is in connection with the revocation of the person’s designation in relation to a hydrogen pipeline project.
(5) In its application for the purposes of subsections (1), (3) and (4), the Gas Act 1986 has effect as if—
(a) in the following provisions, references to the GEMA were to the Secretary of State—
(i) section 7(5) and (6)(a);
(ii) section 7B(9);
(iii) section 8(3), (4) and (5)(a);
(b) in sections 7(6)(b) and 8(5)(b), references to the Secretary of State were to the GEMA;
(c) in section 7B(4)(c), the reference to the GEMA included a reference to the Secretary of State, but only for the purpose of enabling the inclusion of conditions requiring the rendering of a payment on the grant of a licence;
(d) section 7B(9) also required a copy of the licence to be sent to the GEMA.
(6) When granting or extending a gas transporter licence by virtue of this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to—
(a) costs, expenditure or liabilities of any description that the designated person may reasonably be expected to incur in carrying out its activities;
(b) the need to secure that the designated person is able to finance its activities;
(c) the need to secure that the designated person has appropriate incentives in relation to the carrying on of its activities;
(d) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(7) References in subsection (6) to a designated person’s activities are to the person’s activities for the purposes of—
(a) the designated project to which the grant or extension relates, and
(b) in the case of an extension, any other designated project already authorised by the person’s gas transporter licence.
(8) A gas transporter licence granted, extended or restricted by the Secretary of State by virtue of this section has effect for all purposes as if it had been granted, extended or restricted by the GEMA.”
154: Insert the following Clause—
“Applications for grant etc of gas transporter licence
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the making, consideration and determination of relevant applications, including provision—
(a) about the person to whom a relevant application must be made;
(b) about the form and manner in which a relevant application must be made;
(c) imposing timing requirements in relation to the making of a relevant application;
(d) requiring a relevant application to be accompanied by such information and documents as may be specified in the regulations;
(e) requiring a relevant application to be accompanied by such fee (if any) as may be—
(i) specified in the regulations, or
(ii) determined, by the person to whom the application is made, in accordance with the regulations;
(f) about the matters to be taken into account in determining a relevant application;
(g) requiring a determination to be accompanied by reasons;
(h) requiring determinations to be published;
(i) conferring functions on the Secretary of State or the GEMA (including functions involving the exercise of a discretion);
(j) for anything falling to be determined under the regulations to be determined—
(i) by the Secretary of State, the GEMA or another person specified in the regulations, and
(ii) in accordance with such procedure and by reference to such matters and to the opinion of such persons as may be so specified.
(2) “Relevant application” means an application within any of the following paragraphs (whether made to the Secretary of State or the GEMA)—
(a) an application by a designated person for the grant of a gas transporter licence that authorises the conveyance of hydrogen through pipes for the purposes of the person’s designated project;
(b) an application by a designated person for the extension of a gas transporter licence held by the person so that it authorises the conveyance of hydrogen through pipes for the purposes of the person’s designated project;
(c) an application by a person who is or has been designated for the restriction of a gas transporter licence held by the person, in connection with the person’s designation in relation to a hydrogen pipeline project ceasing to have effect.
(3) Provision made by virtue of subsection (1)(j)(ii) may in particular be made by reference to a document as amended from time to time.
(4) Regulations under this section—
(a) may provide for cases in which an application is not required;
(b) may provide for a relevant application that has been rejected by one person to be dealt with afresh by another person.
(5) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult the GEMA.
(6) Section 7B(1) to (2A) of the Gas Act 1986 does not apply to an application for the grant, extension or restriction of a gas transporter licence so far as the application is one to which regulations under this section apply.
(7) Any sums received by the Secretary of State or the GEMA by virtue of this section are to be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
(8) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative procedure.
(9) For the purposes of section 5A(1) to (10) of the Utilities Act 2000 (duty of the GEMA to carry out impact assessment), a function exercisable by the GEMA by virtue of regulations under this section is to be treated as if it were a function exercisable by it under or by virtue of Part 1 of the Gas Act 1986.”
155: Insert the following Clause—
“Modification of gas transporter licence by Secretary of State
(1) The Secretary of State may modify—
(a) the conditions of a designated person’s gas transporter licence;
(b) the terms of a designated person’s gas transporter licence;
(c) the standard conditions incorporated in gas transporter licences by virtue of section 8 of the Gas Act 1986;
(d) a document maintained in accordance with the conditions of licences of a relevant type or an agreement that gives effect to a document so maintained.
(2) The Secretary of State may exercise the power under subsection (1) only for the purpose of—
(a) facilitating or supporting the financing of the design, construction, commissioning or operation of a hydrogen pipeline project (or of hydrogen pipeline projects generally), or
(b) promoting value for money in connection with a hydrogen pipeline project (or in connection with hydrogen pipeline projects generally).
(3) When making modifications under subsection (1)(a) or (b), the Secretary of State must have regard to—
(a) the duties in sections 1 and 4(1)(b) of the Climate Change Act 2008 (carbon targets and budgets);
(b) the interests of existing and future consumers of gas conveyed through pipes, including their interests in relation to the cost and security of supply of gas;
(c) costs, expenditure or liabilities of any description that the designated person may reasonably be expected to incur in carrying out its activities;
(d) the need to secure that the designated person is able to finance its activities;
(e) the need to secure that the designated person has appropriate incentives in relation to the carrying on of its activities;
(f) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
In paragraph (b), “gas” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Gas Act 1986 (see section 48(1) of that Act).
(4) The Secretary of State may modify the conditions or terms of a gas transporter licence held by a person who is or was a designated person in connection with the revocation of the person’s designation in relation to a hydrogen pipeline project.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (1), each of the following is a relevant type of licence—
(a) a gas transporter licence;
(b) a licence under section 7A(1) of the Gas Act 1986 (gas supply licence);
(c) a licence under section 7AA of that Act (gas system planner licence);
(d) a licence under section 7AC of that Act (code manager licence).
(6) References in this section to a designated person’s activities are to the person’s activities for the purposes of—
(a) the designated project to which the modification relates, and
(b) any other designated project authorised by the person’s gas transporter licence.”
156: Insert the following Clause—
“Scope of modification powers under section (Modification of gas transporter licences by Secretary of State)
(1) Modifications made under section (Modification of gas transporter licences by Secretary of State)(1)(a) may include, for example, provision—
(a) about the revenue that the designated person may receive in respect of its activities (its “allowed revenue”);
(b) about how the designated person’s allowed revenue is to be calculated;
(c) about the amounts that the designated person is entitled to receive, or is required to pay, under any hydrogen transport revenue support contract (within the meaning of Chapter 1 of Part 2) to which it is a party;
(d) about activities that the designated person must, may or may not carry on;
(e) about the management of the designated person’s activities, including the manner in which they are carried out;
(f) conferring functions on the GEMA, including provision enabling or requiring the designated person to refer for determination, decision or approval by the GEMA matters specified, or of a description specified, in the licence;
(g) for the amendment of the licence for the purpose of implementing a determination or decision of the GEMA or the Competition and Markets Authority;
(h) requiring the designated person to comply with any direction or instruction, or to have regard to any guidance, given by the GEMA in relation to matters specified, or of a description specified, in the licence;
(i) requiring the designated person to co-operate with the GEMA and to provide such information and assistance to the GEMA as it may require for the purposes of carrying out any of its functions;
(j) about the payment by the designated person, to the GEMA or to the Competition and Markets Authority, of such amounts as may be determined by or in accordance with the licence;
(k) about the disclosure or publication of information by the designated person.
(2) Modifications made under section (Modification of gas transporter licences by Secretary of State)(1)(b) may include, for example, provision about the circumstances in which a licence may be revoked or suspended.
(3) The powers under section (Modification of gas transporter licences by Secretary of State)(1) and (4) to “modify” include the power to amend, add to or remove; and references to modification in section (Modification of gas transporter licences by Secretary of State), this section and section (Procedure etc relating to modifications under section (Modification of gas transporter licences by Secretary of State)) are to be construed accordingly.
(4) The powers conferred by section (Modification of gas transporter licences by Secretary of State)(1) and (4) —
(a) may be exercised generally, only in relation to specified cases, or subject to exceptions (including by making provision for a case to be excepted only so long as specified conditions are satisfied);
(b) may be exercised differently for different purposes or areas;
(c) include power to make incidental, supplementary, consequential or transitional modifications.
(5) Provision included in a gas transporter licence, or in a document or agreement described in section (Modification of gas transporter licences by Secretary of State)(1)(d), by virtue of section (Modification of gas transporter licences by Secretary of State)—
(a) need not relate to the activities authorised by the licence;
(b) may do anything authorised for gas transporter licences by section 7B(4A), (5)(a), (6) or (7) of the Gas Act 1986.
(6) The modification under section (Modification of gas transporter licences by Secretary of State)(1) or (4) of part of a standard condition of a gas transporter licence does not prevent any other part of the condition from continuing to be regarded as a standard condition for the purposes of Part 1 of the Gas Act 1986.
(7) In section 81(2) of the Utilities Act 2000 (standard conditions of gas licences), after “section 85” (as inserted by section 87(13) of this Act) insert “, (Modification of gas transporter licences by Secretary of State)(1) or (4)”.
(8) References in this section to a designated person’s activities are to the person’s activities for the purposes of—
(a) the designated project to which the modification relates, and
(b) any other designated project authorised by the person’s gas transporter licence.”
157: Insert the following Clause—
“Procedure etc relating to modifications under section (Modification of gas transporter licences by Secretary of State)
(1) Before making a modification under section (Modification of gas transporter licences by Secretary of State)(1) or (4), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the holder of any licence being modified,
(b) the GEMA, and
(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(2) If under section (Modification of gas transporter licences by Secretary of State)(1) the Secretary of State modifies the standard conditions of a gas transporter licence, the GEMA must—
(a) make the same modification of those standard conditions for the purposes of their incorporation in gas transporter licences granted after that time, and
(b) publish the modification.
(3) The Secretary of State must publish details of any modifications made under section (Modification of gas transporter licences by Secretary of State)(1) and (4) as soon as reasonably practicable after they are made.
(4) The Secretary of State may exclude from publication under subsection (3) any material the disclosure or publication of which the Secretary of State considers—
(a) would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person, or
(b) would be contrary to the interests of national security.”
158: Insert the following Clause—
“Information and advice
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the provision and publication of information and advice in connection with the carrying out of functions of any person under or by virtue of this Part.
(2) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (1) includes provision—
(a) for the Secretary of State to require the GEMA to provide information to a hydrogen transport counterparty or any other specified person;
(b) for a hydrogen transport counterparty to require the GEMA to provide information to it;
(c) for the Secretary of State to require a designated person, a hydrogen transport counterparty or any other specified person to provide information to the GEMA;
(d) for the GEMA to require a designated person, a hydrogen transport counterparty or any other specified person to provide information to the GEMA;
(e) for the Secretary of State to require a designated person, a hydrogen transport counterparty, the GEMA or any other specified person to provide information or advice to the Secretary of State or any other specified person;
(f) for the classification and protection of confidential or sensitive information;
(g) for the enforcement of any requirement imposed by virtue of any of paragraphs (a) to (f).
(3) Section 105(1) of the Utilities Act 2000 (general restrictions on disclosure of information) does not apply to a disclosure required by virtue of this section.
(4) The first regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.
(5) Any other regulations under this section are subject to the negative procedure.
(6) In this section—
“designated person” includes a person who has been a designated person; “hydrogen transport counterparty” has the same meaning as in Chapter 1 of Part 2 (see section 56);
“specified person” means a person specified, or of a description specified, in regulations under this section.
(7) See also section 34(4) of the Gas Act 1986 (general duty for the GEMA to give information, advice and assistance to the Secretary of State or the Competition and Markets Authority).”
159: Insert the following Clause—
“Conditions of gas transporter licences for conveyance of hydrogen
(1) For the purposes of this section, “relevant licence” means a gas transporter licence so far as it authorises a person to convey hydrogen through pipes in connection with the carrying on of a hydrogen pipeline project.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of section 7B(4)(a) of the Gas Act 1986 (conditions of licences), conditions described in subsection (3) may be included in a relevant licence in respect of circumstances where a person other than the licence holder (“the candidate”)—
(a) has applied for, or is considering whether to apply for, a relevant licence, or
(b) is considering whether to apply for financial support for activities relating to the production, transportation, storage or use of hydrogen.
(3) The conditions referred to in subsection (2) are conditions that require the licence holder to comply with a direction given by the Secretary of State or the GEMA requiring the holder to provide to the candidate—
(a) information in relation to the activities authorised by the licence, and
(b) any other assistance that the candidate may reasonably require for the purpose of determining whether to—
(i) apply for a relevant licence, or
(ii) apply for financial support as mentioned in subsection (2)(b).
(4) A person (“P”) may not under section 8(3) of the Gas Act 1986 modify a condition of a relevant licence unless P is of the opinion that the modification is such that—
(a) the licence holder would not be unduly disadvantaged in competing with one or more other holders of relevant licences, and
(b) no other holder of a relevant licence would be unduly disadvantaged in competing with other holders of such licences (including the holder of the relevant licence to be modified).”
160: Insert the following Clause—
“Secretary of State directions to the GEMA
(1) In exercising any functions it has in relation to relevant gas transporter licences, the GEMA must comply with general or particular directions given to it by the Secretary of State for the purpose of promoting value for money in connection with a hydrogen pipeline project (or in connection with hydrogen pipeline projects generally).
(2) In subsection (1), “relevant gas transporter licence” means a gas transporter licence, held by a designated person, that authorises the conveyance of hydrogen through pipes in connection with the person’s designated project.”
161: Insert the following Clause—
“Repeal of Part
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations repeal any of the preceding provisions of this Part.
(2) So far as any of those provisions is still in force on a relevant date, the Secretary of State must—
(a) consider whether it is appropriate to repeal that provision, and
(b) if satisfied that it is not appropriate to do so, publish a statement no later than 3 months after that date explaining why not.
(3) “Relevant date” in subsection (2) means 31 December 2040 and each five-year anniversary of that date.
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
162: Clause 112, page 104, line 15, leave out subsection (3)
163: Clause 112, page 104, line 23, at end insert—
“(5) Before making scheme regulations that apply in relation to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State must give notice—
(a) stating that the Secretary of State proposes to make scheme regulations,
(b) setting out or describing the provisions of the regulations that apply in relation to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, and
(c) specifying the period (of not less than 28 days from the date on which the notice is given) within which representations may be made with respect to those provisions,
and must consider any representations duly made and not withdrawn.
(6) A notice under subsection (5) must be given to each relevant devolved authority, that is to say—
(a) the Scottish Ministers, so far as the regulations apply in relation to Scotland;
(b) the Welsh Ministers, so far as the regulations apply in relation to Wales;
(c) the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland, so far as the regulations apply in relation to Northern Ireland.
(7) The Secretary of State need not wait until the end of the period specified under subsection (5)(c) before making regulations if, before the end of that period, each relevant devolved authority to which the notice was given has confirmed that it has made any representations it intends to make with respect to the provisions referred to in subsection (5)(b).
(8) The Secretary of State must, if requested to do so by a relevant devolved authority, give the authority a statement setting out whether and how representations made by the authority with respect to the provisions referred to in subsection (5)(b) have been taken into account in the regulations.”
164: After Clause 115, insert the following Clause—
“Power to modify Gas Act 1986 in relation to hydrogen
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for any provision of the Gas Act 1986—
(a) not to apply, or
(b) to apply with modifications specified in the regulations,
in relation to the production, transportation, storage or use of hydrogen.
(2) The power under subsection (1) may be exercised by amending the Gas Act 1986.
(3) The power under subsection (1) may be exercised only for the purpose of facilitating or promoting the production, transportation, storage or use of hydrogen.
(4) Before exercising the power under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the GEMA, and
(b) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(5) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
Motion on Amendments 18 to 164 agreed.

Motion on Amendment 165

Moved by Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 165.
165: Insert the following Clause—
“Revenue certainty scheme for sustainable aviation fuel producers: consultation and report
(1) The Secretary of State must carry out a public consultation on the options for designing and implementing a sustainable aviation fuel revenue certainty scheme.
(2) A “sustainable aviation fuel revenue certainty scheme” is a scheme whose purpose is to give producers of sustainable aviation fuel greater certainty than they otherwise would have about the revenue that they will earn from sustainable aviation fuel that they produce.
(3) The Secretary of State must open the consultation within the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(4) The Secretary of State must bring the consultation to the attention of, in particular, such of each of the following as the Secretary of State considers appropriate—
(a) producers of sustainable aviation fuel;
(b) suppliers of sustainable aviation fuel;
(c) airlines.
(5) The Secretary of State must, within the period of 18 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a report on progress made towards the development of a sustainable aviation fuel revenue certainty scheme.
(6) In this section, “sustainable aviation fuel” means aviation turbine fuel whose use (as compared with the use of other aviation turbine fuel) will, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, contribute to a reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases; and for this purpose—
“aviation turbine fuel” has the meaning given by article 3(1B) of the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations Order 2007 (S.I. 2007/3072);
“greenhouse gas” has the meaning given by section 92(1) of the Climate Change Act 2008.”
Amendment 165A (as an amendment to Commons Amendment 165) not moved.
Motion on Amendment 165 agreed.

Motion on Amendments 166 to 186

Moved by Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 166 to 186.
166: Insert the following Clause—
“Renewable liquid heating fuel obligations
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations subject off-grid heating fuel suppliers (or off-grid heating fuel suppliers of a particular description) to an obligation in respect of renewable liquid heating fuel that corresponds to or is similar to the obligation mentioned in section 124(2) of the Energy Act 2004 (renewable transport fuel obligation).
(2) The regulations may, for any purpose connected with that obligation, make provision corresponding to or similar to any provision made by, or that may be made under, Chapter 5 of Part 2 of the Energy Act 2004 (powers etc relating to renewable transport fuel obligation).
(3) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.
(5) In this section—
“off-grid heating fuel supplier” means a person who, in the course of business, supplies any—
(a) renewable liquid heating fuel,
(b) fossil fuel, or
(c) other fuel, apart from solid fuel,
at or for delivery to places in Great Britain with a view to its being used wholly or mainly for the purpose of heating buildings to which there is no mains gas supply;
“renewable liquid heating fuel” means fuel that is typically supplied or stored in a liquid state and that is—
(a) biofuel or blended biofuel, or
(b) fuel (other than fossil fuel or nuclear fuel) produced—
(i) wholly by energy from a renewable source, or
(ii) wholly by a process powered wholly by such energy;
and “biofuel”, “blended biofuel”, “fossil fuel” and “renewable source” have the meanings given in section 132 of the Energy Act 2004.”
167: Clause 121, page 110, line 16, at end insert “within subsection (5)(a), (b) or (ba)”
168: Clause 121, page 110, line 25, at end insert—
“(ba) an activity, other than an activity within paragraph (a) or (b), in respect of which the ISOP has functions;”
169: Clause 121, page 110, line 26, leave out “or (b)” and insert “, (b) or (ba)”
170: Clause 121, page 110, line 34, leave out paragraph (d)
171: Clause 124, page 114, line 1, leave out subsection (11)
172: Clause 134, page 120, line 20, leave out “in or securities of” and insert “or any other interest in, or securities of,”
173: Clause 138, page 122, line 21, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) For the purposes of this Part, references to the ISOP’s functions are to any functions that are exercisable by the person for the time being designated as the ISOP (whether they are exercisable in the person’s capacity as the ISOP or in another capacity).”
174: Clause 139, page 122, line 32, at end insert—
“(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to regulations under paragraph 9 of Schedule 7.”
175: After Clause 159, insert the following Clause—
“Principal objectives of Secretary of State and GEMA
(1) Section 4AA of the Gas Act 1986 (principal objective and general duties of Secretary of State and GEMA) is amended as set out in subsections (2) and (3).
(2) In subsection (1A)(a), for “the reduction of gas-supply emissions of targeted greenhouse gases” substitute “the Secretary of State’s compliance with the duties in sections 1 and 4(1)(b) of the Climate Change Act 2008 (net zero target for 2050 and five-year carbon budgets)”.
(3) In subsection (5B), omit the definitions of “emissions”, “gas-supply emissions” and “targeted greenhouse gases”.
(4) Section 3A of the Electricity Act 1989 (principal objective and general duties of Secretary of State and GEMA) is amended as set out in subsections (5) and (6).
(5) In subsection (1A)(a), for “the reduction of electricity-supply emissions of targeted greenhouse gases” substitute “the Secretary of State’s compliance with the duties in sections 1 and 4(1)(b) of the Climate Change Act 2008 (net zero target for 2050 and five-year carbon budgets)”.
(6) In subsection (5B), omit the definitions of “emissions”, “electricity-supply emissions” and “targeted greenhouse gases”.”
176: Clause 160, page 136, line 20, at end insert—
“(2) The power conferred by section 274(1) (consequential provision) includes, in particular, power to amend provision inserted in the Electricity Act 1989 by Schedule 13 where the amendment is consequential on the coming into force of paragraph 4 of Schedule 9.”
177: After Clause 167, insert the following Clause—
“Electricity support payments for energy-intensive industries
(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring payments (“electricity support payments”) to be made to a person who carries out an energy-intensive activity, for the purpose of alleviating the impact on the person of electricity costs.
(2) In subsection (1), “energy-intensive activity” means an activity (or description of activity) that is designated as such in the regulations.
(3) The regulations may make provision—
(a) about the circumstances in which a person is eligible for electricity support payments;
(b) about how eligibility is to be considered and determined;
(c) setting out a process for applying for electricity support payments, including provision about the form and content of applications;
(d) about the calculation of electricity support payments;
(e) requiring a person to provide information that is relevant to their eligibility for electricity support payments or to the calculation of any such payments;
(f) requiring a person who supplies electricity to another person to provide information that is relevant to the matters mentioned in paragraph (e) (whether to the person to whom the information relates or to another person specified in the regulations);
(g) about the sharing of information provided by virtue of paragraph (e) or (f);
(h) requiring past electricity support payments to be repaid (with or without interest) in circumstances specified in the regulations;
(i) about how amounts repaid by virtue of paragraph (h) are to be applied (including provision for amounts to be held in reserve or paid into the Consolidated Fund);
(j) for the enforcement of obligations imposed by or under the regulations (including provision about interest on late payments and imposing financial penalties);
(k) about the resolution of disputes, including provision about arbitration or appeals (which may in particular include provision for the person conducting an arbitration or determining an appeal to order the payment of costs or expenses or compensation).
(4) Where by virtue of subsection (3)(j) the regulations provide for the imposition of a financial penalty, they must also provide for a right of appeal against the imposition of the penalty.
(5) The regulations may—
(a) appoint a person, with the person’s consent, to carry out functions in connection with electricity support payments (a “support payment administrator”);
(b) confer functions on the support payment administrator;
(c) require the support payment administrator to provide information or assistance to the Secretary of State, or to another person specified in the regulations, in relation to any functions so conferred.
(6) Where—
(a) the regulations impose a requirement on a regulated person (as defined by section 25(8) of the Electricity Act 1989),
(b) the requirement is enforceable by a support payment administrator, and
(c) the support payment administrator is the GEMA,
the regulations may provide for the requirement to be enforceable by the GEMA as if it were a relevant requirement imposed on the person for the purposes of section 25 of that Act.
(7) The regulations may provide for any sum—
(a) that a person is required under the regulations to pay to the Secretary of State or to a support payment administrator, and
(b) that has not been paid by the date required,
to be recoverable from the person as a civil debt due to the Secretary of State or to the support payment administrator (as the case may be).
(8) The regulations may make provision about the terms of a support payment administrator’s appointment, including provision—
(a) for the support payment administrator to be remunerated, or compensated for costs that they incur;
(b) about how an appointment may be terminated by the Secretary of State or by the support payment administrator, and when termination takes effect.
(9) If functions of a support payment administrator (“the outgoing administrator”) are to be taken on by another support payment administrator or by the Secretary of State (“the successor”), the regulations may—
(a) require the outgoing administrator to take steps specified in the regulations to enable or facilitate the carrying out of those functions by the successor;
(b) provide for the transfer of any property, rights or liabilities from the outgoing administrator to the successor;
(c) provide for anything done by or in relation to the outgoing administrator in connection with any property, rights or liabilities to be treated as done, or to be continued, by or in relation to the successor.
“Property” in this subsection includes interests of any description.
(10) Regulations under this section may confer a discretion on the Secretary of State or on a support payment administrator.
(11) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
178: Insert the following Clause—
“Levy to fund electricity support payments
(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring the payment of a levy by electricity suppliers for the purpose of funding—
(a) the making of electricity support payments by virtue of section 1 (including expected future payments);
(b) any other costs arising by virtue of section 1 or this section (including expected future costs).
(2) The regulations may make provision—
(a) about the calculation of the levy;
(b) requiring electricity suppliers to provide financial collateral in respect of their obligations to pay the levy, and about the form and terms of such collateral;
(c) for the issuing of notices to require the payment of the levy or the provision of collateral;
(d) for the provision of copies of such notices to persons specified in the regulations or for the publication of such notices;
(e) about how amounts of levy are to be applied once paid (including provision for amounts to be held in reserve or paid into the Consolidated Fund);
(f) for the recovery of unpaid amounts of levy in the event of the insolvency or default of an electricity supplier (including provision requiring amounts to be borne by other electricity suppliers in accordance with the regulations);
(g) requiring electricity suppliers or the GEMA to provide information that is needed to determine—
(i) what an electricity supplier’s obligations are in relation to the levy, or
(ii) whether an electricity supplier has complied with those obligations;
(h) about the sharing of information provided by virtue of paragraph (g);
(i) for the enforcement of obligations imposed by or under the regulations (including provision about interest on late payments and imposing financial penalties);
(j) about the resolution of disputes, including provision about arbitration or appeals (which may in particular include provision for the person conducting an arbitration or determining an appeal to order the payment of costs or expenses or compensation).
(3) Where by virtue of subsection (2)(i) the regulations provide for the imposition of a financial penalty, they must also provide for a right of appeal against the imposition of the penalty.
(4) The regulations may—
(a) appoint a person, with the person’s consent, to carry out functions in connection with the levy (a “levy administrator”);
(b) confer functions on the levy administrator;
(c) require the levy administrator to provide information or assistance to the Secretary of State, or to another person specified in the regulations, in relation to any functions so conferred.
(5) Where—
(a) the regulations impose a requirement on a regulated person (as defined by section 25(8) of the Electricity Act 1989),
(b) the requirement is enforceable by a levy administrator, and
(c) the levy administrator is the GEMA,
the regulations may provide for the requirement to be enforceable by the GEMA as if it were a relevant requirement imposed on the person for the purposes of section 25 of that Act.
(6) The regulations may provide for any sum—
(a) that a person is required under the regulations to pay to the Secretary of State or to a levy administrator, and
(b) that has not been paid by the date required,
to be recoverable from the person as a civil debt due to the Secretary of State or to the levy administrator (as the case may be).
(7) The regulations may make provision about the terms of a levy administrator’s appointment, including provision—
(a) for the levy administrator to be remunerated, or compensated for costs that they incur;
(b) about how an appointment may be terminated by the Secretary of State or by the levy administrator, and when termination takes effect.
(8) If functions of a levy administrator (“the outgoing administrator”) are to be taken on by another levy administrator or by the Secretary of State (“the successor”), the regulations may—
(a) require the outgoing administrator to take steps specified in the regulations to enable or facilitate the carrying out of those functions by the successor;
(b) provide for the transfer of any property, rights or liabilities from the outgoing administrator to the successor;
(c) provide for anything done by or in relation to the outgoing administrator in connection with any property, rights or liabilities to be treated as done, or to be continued, by or in relation to the successor.
“Property” in this subsection includes interests of any description.
(9) Regulations under this section may confer a discretion on the Secretary of State or on a levy administrator.
(10) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.
(11) In this section, “electricity supplier” means the holder of a licence under section 6(1)(d) of the Electricity Act 1989.”
179: Clause 170, page 146, line 6, at end insert—
“(3A) Subsections (3B) and (3C) apply if this section comes into force after 1 November 2023.
(3B) Section 89(1) of the Energy Act 2008 (duty to consult on modifications) may be satisfied by consultation before, as well as by consultation after, 1 November 2023.
(3C) Where—
(a) on or before 1 November 2023 the Secretary of State has, in accordance with section 89(3) of the Energy Act 2008, laid before Parliament a draft of proposed modifications under section 88 of that Act, and
(b) on that date the 40-day period referred to in section 89(4) of that Act has not expired,
in calculating that 40-day period no account is to be taken of the period beginning with 2 November 2023 and ending immediately before the day on which this section comes into force.”
180: Clause 174, page 148, line 13, leave out “provisions amending or repealing primary legislation” and insert “—
(a) provisions amending or repealing an Act of Parliament, an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru or Northern Ireland legislation;
(b) provisions amending the Heat Networks (Scotland) Act 2021 (asp 9).”
181: Clause 174, page 148, leave out lines 18 to 24
182: Clause 174, page 148, line 25, leave out “or (8)”
183: Clause 174, page 148, leave out lines 32 to 36
184: After Clause 174, insert the following Clause—
“Regulations made by Secretary of State: consultation with devolved authorities
(1) This section applies where—
(a) the Secretary of State proposes to make regulations under section 174 by virtue of any of Parts 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 of Schedule 16, and
(b) the regulations contain—
(i) in the case of regulations made by virtue of Part 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11 or 12 of Schedule 18, provision within Scottish devolved competence;
(ii) in the case of regulations made by virtue of Part 5 of Schedule 18, provision within Welsh devolved competence.
(2) Before making the regulations, the Secretary of State must give notice—
(a) stating that the Secretary of State proposes to make the regulations,
(b) setting out or describing—
(i) so far as the regulations are made as mentioned in subsection (1)(b)(i), the provision within Scottish devolved competence,
(ii) so far as the regulations are made as mentioned in subsection (1)(b)(ii), the provision within Welsh devolved competence, and
(c) specifying the period (of not less than 28 days from the date on which the notice is given) within which representations may be made with respect to those provisions,
and must consider any representations duly made and not withdrawn.
(3) A notice under subsection (2) must be given to each relevant devolved authority, that is to say—
(a) the Scottish Ministers, if the regulations are made as mentioned in subsection (1)(b)(i) and contain provision within Scottish devolved competence;
(b) the Welsh Ministers, if the regulations are made as mentioned in subsection (1)(b)(ii) and contain provision within Welsh devolved competence.
(4) The Secretary of State need not wait until the end of the period specified under subsection (2)(c) before making regulations if, before the end of that period, each relevant devolved authority to which the notice was given has confirmed that it has made any representations it intends to make with respect to the provision referred to in subsection (2)(b)(i) or (ii) (as the case may be).
(5) The Secretary of State must, if requested to do so by a relevant devolved authority, give the authority a statement setting out whether and how representations made by the authority with respect to the provision referred to in subsection (2)(b)(i) or
(ii) (as the case may be) have been taken into account in the regulations.
(6) For the purposes of this section, provision—
(a) is within Scottish devolved competence if it would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament;
(b) is within Welsh devolved competence if it would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if it were contained in an Act of the Senedd (ignoring any requirement for the consent of a Minister of the Crown imposed under Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006).”
185: Clause 175, page 149, line 12, leave out “primary legislation (as defined in section 174)” and insert “legislation mentioned in section 174(5)”
186: Clause 178, page 151, line 22, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State may make regulations under this section only if the Secretary of State has also made regulations under section 177(1) (and those regulations are still in force).”
Motion on Amendments 166 to 186 agreed.

Motion on Amendment 187

Moved by Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 187.
187: Page 172, line 14, leave out Clause 204

Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 187

Moved by Baroness Blake of Leeds
At end insert “and do propose Amendment 187B instead of the words so left out of the Bill—
A187B: Before Clause 205, insert the following new Clause—
“Energy Performance statement
(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement setting out how His Majesty’s Government intends—
(a) to achieve EPC band C or better—
(i) by 2028, in all privately rented residential tenancies, and
(ii) by 2035, in all other homes in the United Kingdom,
where practical, technically feasible, cost effective and affordable,
(b) to achieve EPC band B or better by 2030 in all non-domestic properties, and
(c) to introduce the Future Homes Standard for all new- builds in England by 2025.
(2) The Secretary of State must review, and if subsequently required, by regulations revise—
(a) the level of the cost cap in the Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2019 (S.I.2019/595), and
(b) the penalties imposed on landlords of domestic private rented sector property in the Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015 (S.I. 2015/962).
(3) The Secretary of State must, in developing the content of the statement under subsection (1), consult the Climate Change Committee and its sub-committee on adaptation.””
Ayes 191, Noes 216.

Amendment to the Motion disagreed.
Motion on Amendment 187 agreed.

Motion on Amendments 188 to 258

Lord Callanan: Moved by Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 188 to 258.
188: Clause 205, page 172, line 30, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”
189: Clause 205, page 173, line 34, at end insert— ““the appropriate authority” means—(a) in relation to England and Wales, the Secretary of State;(b) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Ministers;(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, the Department;”
190: Clause 205, page 173, line 36, at end insert—““the Department” means the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland;”
191: Clause 207, page 175, line 14, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”
192: Clause 208, page 175, line 24, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert “primary legislation”
193: Clause 208, page 175, line 25, at end insert—“(1A) Regulations under this Part containing provision within subsection (2) (with or without other provision)—(a) if made by the Secretary of State, are subject to the affirmative procedure (see section 276);(b) if made by the Scottish Ministers, are subject to the affirmative procedure (see section 29 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10));(c) if made by the Department, may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
194: Clause 208, page 175, line 26, leave out from beginning to end of line 27 and insert “The provision within this subsection is—”
195: Clause 208, page 175, line 31, at end insert “(but excluding provision made by virtue of section 207(7) (inflation-related adjustments))”
196: Clause 208, page 175, line 32, leave out “an Act of Parliament” and insert “primary legislation”
197: Clause 208, page 175, line 33, at end insert—“(2A) Any other regulations under this Part—(a) if made by the Secretary of State, are subject to the negative procedure (see section 276);(b) if made by the Scottish Ministers, are subject to the negative procedure (see section 28 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10));(c) if made by the Department, are subject to negative resolution within the meaning given by section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (c. 33 (N.I.)).”
198: Clause 208, page 175, line 37, at end insert—“(4) A power of the Department to make regulations under this Part is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)).”
199: Clause 208, page 175, line 37, at end insert—“(5) In this section “primary legislation” means—(a) an Act of Parliament,(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,(c) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru, or(d) Northern Ireland legislation.”
200: Clause 218, page 185, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 186
201: Clause 218, page 186, line 7, at end insert—“(2A) Before making ESOS regulations that contain provision within devolved competence, the Secretary of State must give notice—(a) stating that the Secretary of State proposes to make ESOS regulations,(b) setting out or describing the provisions of the regulations that contain provision within devolved competence, and  (c) specifying the period (of not less than 28 days from the date on which the notice is given) within which representations may be made with respect to those provisions,and must consider any representations duly made and not withdrawn.(2B) A notice under subsection (2A) must be given to each relevant devolved authority, that is to say—(a) the Scottish Ministers, so far as the regulations contain provision within Scottish devolved competence;(b) the Welsh Ministers, so far as the regulations contain provision within Welsh devolved competence;(c) the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland, so far as the regulations contain provision within Northern Ireland devolved competence.(2C) The Secretary of State need not wait until the end of the period specified under subsection (2A)(c) before making ESOS regulations if, before the end of that period, each relevant devolved authority to which the notice was given has confirmed that it has made any representations it intends to make with respect to the provisions referred to in subsection (2A)(b).(2D) The Secretary of State must, if requested to do so by a relevant devolved authority, give the authority a statement setting out whether and how representations made by the authority with respect to the provisions referred to in subsection (2A)(b) have been taken into account in the regulations.(2E) References in subsection (2A) to provision within devolved competence are to provision that is within Scottish, Welsh or Northern Ireland devolved competence.(2F) Where the Secretary of State makes ESOS regulations that have effect in relation to the compliance period beginning on 6 December 2019 (see regulation 4 of the Energy Savings Opportunity Schemes Regulations 2014 (S.I. 2014/1643))—(a) subsections (2A) to (2E) do not apply, and(b) before making the regulations, the Secretary of State must consult—(i) the Scottish Ministers, so far as the regulations contain provision within Scottish devolved competence,(ii) the Welsh Ministers, so far as the regulations contain provision within Welsh devolved competence, and(iii) the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland, so far as the regulations contain provision within Northern Ireland devolved competence,and subsection (2) applies to consultation under paragraph (b) as it applies to consultation under subsection (1).”
202: Clause 218, page 186, line 8, leave out subsection (3)
203: Clause 218, page 186, line 30, leave out paragraph (h)
204: Clause 218, page 186, line 32, leave out subsection (8)
205: Clause 242, page 203, line 35, leave out from beginning to “financial” in line 1 on page 204 and insert “The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, provide”
206: Clause 242, page 204, line 11, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—“(d) the acquisition of shares or any other interest in, or securities of, a body corporate;”
207: Clause 242, page 204, line 13, leave out “investment by”
208: Clause 245, page 206, line 13, leave out from “wind” to end of line 18 and insert “activity” means—(a) the planning, construction, operation or decommissioning of offshore wind electricity infrastructure, or(b) the identification of an area for activity within paragraph (a) (whether or not any particular offshore wind electricity infrastructure is in contemplation).”
209: Clause 245, page 206, line 18, at end insert—“(2) In subsection (1), “offshore wind electricity infrastructure” means—  (a) a generating station, in the UK marine area, that generates electricity from wind (an “offshore wind generating station”), or(b) infrastructure, in the UK marine area, used or intended for use in connection with—(i) an offshore wind generating station, or(ii) the conveyance of electricity generated by an offshore wind generating station.”
210: Clause 245, page 206, line 18, at end insert—“(3) For the purposes of the reference in subsection (2)(b)(ii) to infrastructure used or intended for use in connection with the conveyance of electricity generated by an offshore wind generating station, it does not matter whether the infrastructure is also used or intended for use in connection with the conveyance of electricity generated from other sources.”
211: Clause 246, page 206, line 21, leave out “one or more relevant offshore wind projects” and insert “relevant offshore wind activities”
212: Clause 246, page 206, line 25, leave out “a project” and insert “an activity”
213: Clause 246, page 206, line 28, leave out “a project” and insert “an activity”
214: Clause 246, page 207, line 7, leave out “project or projects” and insert “activities”
215: Clause 247, page 207, line 36, leave out “projects” and insert “activities”
216: Clause 247, page 207, line 38, leave out “one or more relevant offshore wind projects” and insert “relevant offshore wind activities”
217: Clause 247, page 208, line 2, leave out “for and in connection with the determination of the extent to which” and insert “enabling a determination to be made, by or on behalf of the relevant person, as to whether (and, if so, the extent to which)”
218: Clause 247, page 208, line 4, leave out “a person” and insert “another person”
219: Clause 247, page 208, line 5, leave out “project” and insert “activity”
220: Clause 247, page 208, line 7, after “extent” insert “(if any)”
221: Clause 247, page 208, line 11, leave out “project” and insert “activity”
222: Clause 247, page 208, line 11, at end insert—“(5A) “Relevant person”, for the purposes of a determination made by virtue of subsection (4)(a), means the person who imposed the compensation condition.”
223: Clause 247, page 208, line 24, at end insert “, where the functions relate to the operation or management of a marine recovery fund”
224: Clause 247, page 208, line 32, at end insert—“(8A) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (7)(c) must provide that the delegation of a function—(a) to a Scottish public authority requires the consent of the Scottish Ministers;(b) to a Welsh public authority requires the consent of the Welsh Ministers;(c) to a Northern Ireland public authority requires the consent of DAERA.”
225: Clause 247, page 208, line 38, at end insert—“(9A) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the Scottish Ministers, so far as the regulations relate to relevant offshore wind activities in Scotland,(b) the Welsh Ministers, so far as the regulations relate to relevant offshore wind activities in Wales,  (c) DAERA, so far as the regulations relate to relevant offshore wind activities in Northern Ireland, and(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
226: Clause 247, page 208, line 40, leave out subsection (11)
227: Clause 248, page 209, line 6, leave out “projects” and insert “activities”
228: Clause 248, page 209, line 9, leave out “a relevant offshore wind project” and insert “relevant offshore wind activities”
229: Clause 248, page 209, line 15, leave out “projects” and insert “activities”
230: Clause 248, page 209, line 15, leave out from “region” to end of line 16
231: Clause 248, page 209, line 18, leave out “projects” and insert “activities”
232: Clause 248, page 209, line 22, leave out “projects” and insert “activities”
233: Clause 248, page 209, line 24, leave out “project” does not include a project” and insert “activity” does not include an activity within section 245(a)”
234: Clause 248, page 210, line 4, leave out “a project” and insert “an activity”
235: Clause 248, page 210, line 11, leave out sub-paragraph (ii)
236: Clause 248, page 211, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (iii)
237: Clause 248, page 211, line 21, at end insert—“(6A) Regulations made under this section by the Secretary of State—(a) may not provide for a function that is exercisable by a Scottish public authority, a Welsh public authority or a Northern Ireland public authority to cease to be exercisable by that authority, and(b) to the extent that a function is exercisable by or on behalf of a Scottish public authority, a Welsh public authority or a Northern Ireland public authority, may not provide for the function also to be exercisable to that extent by another person,but may (subject to paragraphs (a) and (b)) modify such a function.”
238: Clause 248, page 211, line 23, after “authority” insert “or a specified person”
239: Clause 248, page 211, line 25, at end insert—“(7A) But regulations made by the Secretary of State by virtue of subsection (7)(a) may not enable directions to be given—(a) to a Scottish public authority by a person other than the Scottish Ministers;(b) to a Welsh public authority by a person other than the Welsh Ministers.”
240: Clause 248, page 212, line 3, leave out “projects” and insert “activities”
241: Clause 248, page 212, line 4, leave out “the Scottish inshore region,”
242: Clause 248, page 212, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 12
243: Clause 249, page 212, line 21, leave out “projects” and insert “activities”
244: Clause 249, page 212, line 24, leave out “projects” and insert “activities”
245: Clause 250, page 214, line 34, leave out “project” and insert “activity”
246: Clause 250, page 215, line 3, at end insert— “(3) References in this Chapter—  (a) to a Scottish public authority are to the Scottish Ministers or any other public authority whose functions are exercisable only or mainly in or as regards Scotland;(b) to a Welsh public authority are to the Welsh Ministers or any other public authority whose functions are exercisable only or mainly in or as regards Wales;(c) to a Northern Ireland public authority are to a Northern Ireland department or any other public authority whose functions are exercisable only or mainly in or as regards Northern Ireland.”
247: After Clause 252, insert the following Clause—“Regulations under section 251 and 252: procedure with devolved authoritiesRegulations under section 251(1) Before making regulations under section 251 that contain provision within devolved competence, the Secretary of State must give notice to each relevant devolved authority—(a) stating that the Secretary of State proposes to make regulations under that section,(b) setting out or describing the provision that is within the relevant devolved competence, and(c) specifying the period (of not less than 28 days from the date on which the notice is given) within which representations may be made with respect to that provision,and must consider any representations duly made and not withdrawn.(2) The Secretary of State need not wait until the end of the period specified under subsection (2)(c) before making regulations if, before the end of that period, each relevant devolved authority to which the notice was given has confirmed that it has made any representations it intends to make with respect to the provision referred to in subsection (2)(b).(3) The Secretary of State must, if requested to do so by a relevant devolved authority, give the authority a statement setting out whether and how representations made by the authority with respect to the provision referred to in subsection (2)(b) have been taken into account in the regulations.(4) In subsections (1) to (3), “relevant devolved authority”, in relation to regulations, means—(a) the Scottish Ministers, if the regulations contain provision within Scottish devolved competence;(b) the Welsh Ministers, if the regulations contain provision within Welsh devolved competence;(c) the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, if the regulations contain provision within Northern Ireland devolved competence;and “the relevant devolved competence”, in relation to a relevant devolved authority, is to be construed accordingly.Regulations under section 252(5) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under section 252 containing provision within Scottish devolved competence unless the Scottish Ministers have consented to that provision.(6) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under section 252 containing provision within Welsh devolved competence unless the Welsh Ministers have consented to that provision.Devolved competence(7) For the purposes of this section, provision—(a) is within Scottish devolved competence if it would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament;(b) is within Welsh devolved competence if it would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if it were contained in an Act of the Senedd (ignoring any requirement for the consent of a Minister of the Crown imposed under Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006);(c) is within Northern Ireland devolved competence if it—  (i) would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if it were contained in an Act of that Assembly, and(ii) would not, if it were contained in a Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly, result in the Bill requiring the consent of the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998;and references to provision being within devolved competence are to provision that is within Scottish, Welsh or Northern Ireland devolved competence.”
248: Clause 254, page 220, line 8, leave out “the”
249: Clause 254, page 220, line 8, at end insert—“(za) the Petroleum (Production) (Landward Areas) Regulations 1995 (S.I.1995/1436),(zb) the Petroleum (Current Model Clauses) Order 1999 (S.I. 1999/160),(zc) the Petroleum Licensing (Exploration and Production) (Seaward and Landward Areas) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/352),”
250: Clause 254, page 220, line 10, leave out “(“the 2008 Regulations”)”
251: Clause 254, page 220, line 12, leave out “(“the 2014 Regulations”)”
252: Clause 254, page 220, line 13, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—“(2) Where a licence granted (or having effect as if granted) by the Oil and Gas Authority under the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934 or the Petroleum Act 1998—(a) incorporates model clauses amended by a paragraph of Schedule 19 (whether or not any provision of those model clauses is modified or excluded), and(b) is in force immediately before that paragraph comes into force,the licence has effect with the amendments provided for by that paragraph.”
253: Clause 254, page 220, line 35, leave out “2014 Regulations” and insert “Petroleum Licensing (Exploration and Production) (Landward Areas) Regulations 2014”
254: Clause 257, page 223, line 15, leave out “or a licensed disposal site”
255: Clause 257, page 224, leave out lines 5 to 8
256: Clause 257, page 225, line 8, after “installation” insert “or a licensed disposal site”
257: Clause 257, page 225, line 36, at end insert—““licensed disposal site” means a site that would be, or would at any time have been, a relevant disposal site but for section 7B(5)(a) (nuclear site licence granted in respect of site);”
258: After Clause 259, insert the following Clause—“Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage: implementation power(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate—(a) to implement the CSC, or(b) otherwise for the purposes of dealing with any other matter arising out of, or related to, the CSC.(2) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (1) includes provision that is authorised by the CSC to be made in relation to a particular matter.(3) Regulations under this section may amend—(a) Schedule 20,(b) the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, or(c) any other enactment having effect in relation to a matter to which the CSC relates.  (4) In this section, “the CSC” means the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (as amended or supplemented from time to time).(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
Motion on Amendments 188 to 258 agreed.

Motion on Amendment 259

Lord Callanan: Moved by Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 259.
259: After Clause 269, insert the following Clause—“Great British Nuclear(1) The Secretary of State may by notice designate a company as Great British Nuclear.(2) A company may be designated under this section only if—(a) it is limited by shares, and(b) it is wholly-owned by the Crown.(3) A notice under subsection (1)—(a) must specify the time from which the designation has effect, and(b) must be published by the Secretary of State as soon as reasonably practicable after the notice is given.(4) The designation of a company terminates—(a) if it ceases to be wholly-owned by the Crown, or(b) if the Secretary of State revokes its designation by notice.(5) A notice under subsection (4)(b)—(a) must specify the time from which the revocation has effect, and(b) must be published by the Secretary of State as soon as reasonably practicable after the notice is given.(6) For the purposes of this section a company is wholly-owned by the Crown if each share in the company is held by—(a) a Minister of the Crown,(b) the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority established by section 1 of the Energy Act 2004,(c) the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority established by section 1 of the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954,(d) a company which is wholly-owned by the Crown, or(e) a nominee of a person falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (d).(7) A company designated as Great British Nuclear under this section is exempt from the requirement in section 59 of the Companies Act 2006 (requirement as to use of “limited” in company name).(8) In this section—“company” means a company registered under the Companies Act 2006;“Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 (see section 8(1) of that Act).”
Amendment to the Motion not moved.
Motion on Amendment 259 agreed.

Motion on Amendment 260

Lord Callanan: Moved by Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 260.
260: Insert the following Clause—“Crown status(1) Great British Nuclear is not to be regarded as a servant or agent of the Crown or as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown.  (2) Great British Nuclear’s property is not to be regarded as property of, or property held on behalf of, the Crown.”
Amendment to the Motion not moved.
Motion on Amendment 260 agreed.

Motion on Amendment 261

Lord Callanan: Moved by Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 261.
261: Insert the following Clause—“Great British Nuclear’s objectsGreat British Nuclear’s objects are to facilitate the design, construction, commissioning and operation of nuclear energy generation projects for the purpose of furthering any policies published by His Majesty's government.”
Amendment to the Motion not moved.
Motion on Amendment 261 agreed.

Motion on Amendment 262

Lord Callanan: Moved by Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 262.
262: Insert the following Clause—“Financial assistance(1) The Secretary of State may provide financial assistance—(a) to Great British Nuclear, or(b) to any other person to facilitate the design, construction, commissioning and operation of nuclear energy generation projects.(2) Financial assistance under this section may be provided in any form and in particular may be provided—(a) by way of grant, loan, guarantee or indemnity,(b) by the acquisition of shares or any other interest in, or securities of, a body corporate,(c) by the acquisition of any undertaking or of any assets,(d) pursuant to a contract, or(e) by incurring expenditure for the benefit of the person assisted.(3) Financial assistance under this section may be provided subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, which may include—(a) conditions about repayment with or without interest or other return, or(b) conditions with which Great British Nuclear or any recipient of financial assistance under subsection (1)(b) must comply if the financial assistance is used for—(i) acquiring shares or any other interest in, or securities of, a body corporate, or(ii) participating in a partnership or joint venture.(4) The power to provide financial assistance under this section is in addition to (and does not limit or replace) any other power of a Minister of the Crown to provide financial assistance.(5) In this section—“Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 (see section 8(1) of that Act);“partnership” means—(a) a partnership within the meaning of the Partnership Act 1890, or  (b) a limited partnership within the meaning of the Limited Partnerships Act 1907.”
Amendment to the Motion not moved.
Motion on Amendment 262 agreed.

Motion on Amendment 263

Lord Callanan: Moved by Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 263.
263: Insert the following Clause—“Secretary of State directions and guidance(1) The Secretary of State may from time to time give Great British Nuclear directions or guidance.(2) Before giving a direction or issuing guidance the Secretary of State must consult Great British Nuclear and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(3) Directions may be general or particular in character.(4) Great British Nuclear must—(a) comply with any directions given to it under this section, and(b) have regard to any guidance given to it under this section.(5) The Secretary of State must—(a) publish and lay before Parliament any directions given to Great British Nuclear under this section, and(b) publish any guidance given to Great British Nuclear under this section.”
Amendment to the Motion not moved.
Motion on Amendment 263 agreed.

Motion on Amendment 264

Lord Callanan: Moved by Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 264.
264: Insert the following Clause—“Annual report(1) Great British Nuclear must, after the end of each reporting year, send a report to the Secretary of State about the activities it has undertaken during that year.(2) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before Parliament together with any comments that the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(3) In this section “reporting year”, in relation to Great British Nuclear, means a period of 12 months ending with 31 March (but does not include any period before its designation as Great British Nuclear).”
Amendment to the Motion not moved.
Motion on Amendment 264 agreed.

Motion on Amendment 265

Lord Callanan: Moved by Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 265.
265: Insert the following Clause—“Annual accounts(1) Great British Nuclear must send a copy of its accounts and reports for each financial year to the Secretary of State before the end of the period for filing those accounts and reports.  (2) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of any accounts and reports received under subsection (1) before Parliament.(3) In this section—“accounts and reports” means, in relation to Great British Nuclear, the annual accounts and reports that Great British Nuclear’s directors must deliver to the registrar under section 441 of the Companies Act 2006;“financial year”, in relation to Great British Nuclear, means Great British Nuclear’s financial year determined in accordance with section 390 of the Companies Act 2006;“period for filing”, in relation to accounts and reports for a financial year, has the same meaning as in the Companies Acts (see section 442 of the Companies Act 2006);“the registrar” has the meaning given by section 1060(3) of the Companies Act 2006.”
Amendment to the Motion not moved.
Motion on Amendment 265 agreed.

Motion on Amendment 266

Lord Callanan: Moved by Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 266.
266: Insert the following Clause—“Transfer schemes(1) The Secretary of State may make one or more schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities—(a) to a GBN body or a proposed GBN body from—(i) a former GBN body;(ii) a GBN body;(iii) a proposed GBN body;(iv) a Minister of the Crown or Crown body;(v) a designated BNFL body;(vi) an NDA body;(vii) a UKAEA body;(viii) a nominee of a person falling within any of sub- paragraphs (i) to (vii);(b) to a former GBN body, a Minister of the Crown or Crown body, a designated BNFL body or a public body from—(i) a former GBN body;(ii) a GBN body.(2) The things that may be transferred under a transfer scheme include—(a) rights and liabilities relating to a contract of employment;(b) property, rights and liabilities that could not otherwise be transferred;(c) property acquired, and rights and liabilities arising, after the making of the scheme;(d) criminal liabilities.(3) A transfer scheme may—(a) create rights, or impose liabilities, in relation to property, rights or liabilities transferred;(b) make provision about the continuing effect of things done by a transferor in respect of anything transferred;(c) make provision about the continuation of things (including legal proceedings) in the process of being done by, on behalf of or in relation to a transferor in respect of anything transferred;(d) make provision for references to a transferor in an instrument or other document in respect of anything transferred to be treated as references to the transferee;(e) make provision for shared ownership or use of the property;(f) make provision for apportioning property, rights or liabilities;(g) require a transferor, an associate of a transferor, or a transferee, to enter into any agreement of any kind, or for a purpose, specified in or determined in accordance with the scheme;(h) make provision for transferring property, rights and liabilities irrespective of any requirement for consent that would otherwise apply;  (i) make provision for preventing a right of pre-emption, right of reverter, right of forfeiture, right to compensation or other similar right from arising or becoming exercisable as a result of the transfer of property, rights or liabilities;(j) make provision for dispensing with any formality in relation to the transfer of property, rights or liabilities by the scheme;(k) make provision for reimbursing any person in respect of expenditure reasonably incurred by the person in connection with the making of a transfer scheme;(l) make provision that has the same or similar effect to the TUPE regulations;(m) make other consequential, supplementary, incidental or transitional provision.(4) A transfer scheme may provide—(a) for modifications by agreement;(b) for modifications to have effect from the date when the original scheme came into effect.(5) A transfer scheme may make provision requiring a transferor to provide such co-operation to a transferee as the transferee may reasonably require in connection with the implementation of the scheme.(6) The co-operation that may be required by virtue of subsection (5) includes, in particular, co-operation in relation to—(a) the provision of information;(b) consultation with representatives of employees transferred by the scheme.(7) Any requirement imposed on a person by a transfer scheme is enforceable by the Secretary of State in civil proceedings—(a) for an injunction,(b) for specific performance of a statutory duty under section 45 of the Court of Session Act 1988, or(c) for any other appropriate remedy or relief.(8) Before making a transfer scheme, the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the transferor (or, if there is more than one transferor, the transferors), and(b) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(9) Subsection (8) may be satisfied by consultation before the passing of this Act (as well as by consultation after that time).(10) The making of a transfer scheme is not a trigger event for the purposes of the National Security and Investment Act 2021.(11) In this section—“associate” has the meaning given by section 1152 of the Companies Act 2006; “company” means a company registered under the Companies Act 2006; “Crown body” means any body corporate in which a Minister of the Crown holds, directly or indirectly, any shares or other interest;“designated BNFL body” means a company designated for the purposes of Schedule 7 to the Energy Act 2004 or any body corporate in which a company designated for those purposes holds, directly or indirectly, any shares or other interest;“former GBN body” means—(a) a company formerly designated as Great British Nuclear, or(b) any body corporate in which a company formerly designated as Great British Nuclear—(i) holds, directly or indirectly, any shares or other interest, and(ii) held, directly or indirectly, any shares or other interest, at a time at which it was designated as Great British Nuclear;“GBN body” means Great British Nuclear or any body corporate in which Great British Nuclear holds, directly or indirectly, any shares or other interest;“information” includes documents;  “Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 (see section 8(1) of that Act);“NDA company” means the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (established by section 1 of the Energy Act 2004) or any body corporate in which the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority holds, directly or indirectly, any shares or other interest;“proposed GBN body” means a company that the Secretary of State proposes to designate as Great British Nuclear or any body corporate in which a company proposed to be designated for those purposes holds, directly or indirectly, any shares or other interest;“public body” means a body established by an enactment (within the meaning of Part 1 of this Act) or any body corporate in which a body established by an enactment holds, directly or indirectly, any shares or other interest;“the TUPE regulations” means the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/246);“UKAEA body” means the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (established by section 1 of the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954) or any body corporate in which the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority holds, directly or indirectly, any shares or other interest.”
Amendment to the Motion not moved.
Motion on Amendment 266 agreed.

Motion on Amendment 267

Lord Callanan: Moved by Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 267.
267: Insert the following Clause—“Transfer schemes: compensation(1) A scheme under section (Transfer schemes) may provide for a transferor or any person who has suffered loss or damage in consequence of the scheme to be entitled to compensation from the Secretary of State or a transferee under the scheme, in accordance with provision made by or under the scheme.(2) Where a person is entitled to compensation, the amount of compensation is to be the amount—(a) agreed by the Secretary of State and the person, or(b) in the absence of such agreement, determined by an independent valuer.(3) An independent valuer appointed for the purposes of subsection (2) must be appointed—(a) by the Secretary of State and the person, or(b) in the absence of such agreement, by the Secretary of State on behalf of both the Secretary of State and the person.(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about compensation under this section that corresponds or is similar to any provision about compensation that may be made by the Secretary of State by regulations under paragraph 8(5) of Schedule 7.(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative procedure.”
Amendment to the Motion not moved.
Motion on Amendment 267 agreed.

Motion on Amendment 268

Lord Callanan: Moved by Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 268.
268: Insert the following Clause—“Transfer schemes: taxation(1) The Treasury may by regulations make provision varying the way in which a relevant tax has effect in relation to—(a) anything transferred under a scheme under section (Transfer schemes), or(b) anything done for the purposes of, or in relation to, a transfer under such a scheme.(2) The provision that may be made under subsection (1)(a) includes, in particular, provision for—(a) a tax provision not to apply, or to apply with modifications, in relation to anything transferred;(b) anything transferred to be treated in a specified way for the purposes of a tax provision;(c) the Secretary of State to be required or permitted to determine, or to specify the method for determining, anything that needs to be determined for the purposes of any tax provision so far as relating to anything transferred.(3) The provision that may be made under subsection (1)(b) includes, in particular, provision for—(a) a tax provision not to apply, or to apply with modifications, in relation to anything done for the purposes of, or in relation to, the transfer;(b) anything done for the purposes of, or in relation to, the transfer to have or not have a specified consequence or be treated in a specified way;(c) the Secretary of State to be required or permitted to determine, or to specify the method for determining, anything that needs to be determined for the purposes of any tax provision so far as relating to anything done for the purposes of, or in relation to, the transfer.(4) In this section—(a) “relevant tax” means income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty, stamp duty reserve tax, stamp duty land tax or value added tax;(b) “tax provision” means any provision—(i) about a relevant tax, and(ii) made by an enactment (within the meaning of Part 1 of this Act);(c) references to the transfer of a property include the grant of the lease.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the House of Commons.”
Amendment to the Motion not moved.
Motion on Amendment 268 agreed.

Motion on Amendment 269

Lord Callanan: Moved by Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 269.
269: Insert the following Clause—“Transfer schemes: provision of information or assistance(1) The Secretary of State may direct a person within subsection (2) to provide the Secretary of State with such specified information or assistance as the Secretary of State may reasonably require in connection with the making of a scheme under section (Transfer schemes).(2) A person is within this subsection if—(a) property, rights or liabilities are likely to be transferred from or to the person by such a scheme, or(b) the person is a body corporate that is likely to be transferred under such a scheme.  (3) Paragraph 12(4), (6), (7) and (8) of Schedule 7 apply to a direction under this section as they apply to a direction under sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph.(4) In this section—“assistance” includes assistance provided in a country or territory other than the United Kingdom;“information” includes documents;“specified” means specified in the direction.”
Amendment to the Motion not moved.
Motion on Amendment 269 agreed.

Motion on Amendment 270

Lord Callanan: Moved by Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 270.
270: Insert the following Clause—“Reimbursement and compensation in connection with designationThe Secretary of State may reimburse a person in respect of expenditure reasonably incurred by the person in preparation for or in connection with the designation of a company under section (Great British Nuclear) (other than any expenditure incurred in connection with the making of a scheme under section (Transfer schemes)).”
Amendment to the Motion not moved.
Motion on Amendment 270 agreed.

Motion on Amendment 271

Lord Callanan: Moved by Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 271.
271: Insert the following Clause—“Pension arrangements in connection with Great British Nuclear(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about pension arrangements in relation to Great British Nuclear that corresponds or is similar to any provision about pension arrangements in relation to the ISOP that may be made by the Secretary of State by regulations under paragraph 2 or 3 of Schedule 8 (see paragraph 4 of that Schedule for restrictions on how the power to make regulations under paragraph 2 or 3 of that Schedule may be exercised).(2) Before making regulations under subsection (1) that make provision corresponding or similar to the provision that may be made by regulations under paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 8, the Secretary of State must carry out a consultation corresponding to the consultation required by paragraph 2(5) of that Schedule.(3) Before making regulations under subsection (1) that make provision corresponding or similar to the provision that may be made by regulations under paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 8, the Secretary of State must carry out a consultation corresponding to the consultation required by paragraph 3(4) of that Schedule.(4) Subsections (2) and (3) may be satisfied by consultation before the passing of this Act (as well as by consultation after that time).(5) The Secretary of State may direct a person within subsection (6) to provide the Secretary of State with specified pensions information or such specified assistance as the Secretary of State may reasonably require in preparation for or in connection with the exercise of the power conferred on the Secretary of State by subsection (1).(6) The following persons are within this subsection—(a) the trustee of a qualifying pension scheme;(b) any person who exercises functions on behalf of a person within paragraph (a);  (c) any person who is or has been an employer of a qualifying member of a qualifying pension scheme.(7) Sub-paragraphs (5) to (7) of paragraph 5 of Schedule 8 apply to a direction given under subsection (5) as they apply to a direction given under sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph.(8) The exercise of the power conferred on the Secretary of State by subsection (1) is not a trigger event for the purposes of the National Security and Investment Act 2021.(9) In this section—“pensions information” means information that—(a) relates to pensions or other benefits under a qualifying pension scheme, or(b) relates to the administration of a qualifying pension scheme in respect of pensions or other benefits under the scheme;“qualifying member”, in relation to a qualifying pension scheme, means a person who is or has been a member (as defined by section 124(1) of the Pensions Act 1995) of the scheme;“qualifying pension scheme” means a pension scheme that provides for the payment of pensions or other benefits to or in respect of employees or former employees of—(a) a transferor in relation to a transfer scheme under section (Transfer schemes), or(b) an associate (as defined by section 1152 of the Companies Act 2006) of such a transferor;“specified” means specified in the direction.(10) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative procedure.”
Amendment to the Motion not moved.
Motion on Amendment 271 agreed.

Motion on Amendment 272

Lord Callanan: Moved by Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 272.
272: Page 238, line 5, leave out Clause 270

Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 272

Lord Teverson: Moved by Lord Teverson
Leave out “agree” and insert “disagree”.

Lord Teverson: My Lords, for the reputation of the UK internationally and for the health of the planet, I wish to test the opinion of the House on this amendment.
Ayes 186, Noes 214.

Amendment to Motion on Amendment 272 disagreed.
Motion on Amendment 272 agreed.

Motion on Amendment 273

Lord Callanan: Moved by Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 273.
273: Page 238, line 10, leave out Clause 271
Motion on Amendment 273 agreed.

Motion on Amendment 274

Lord Callanan: Moved by Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 274.
274: Page 238, line 23, leave out Clause 272

Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 274

Baroness Boycott: Moved by Baroness Boycott
At end insert “and do propose Amendment 274B instead of the words so left out of the Bill—
274B: After Clause 271, insert the following new Clause—“Local supply for community energy  (1) Within 18 months of this Act being passed the Secretary of State must consult and report on the barriers preventing the development of community energy schemes.(2) For the purposes of this section, community energy schemes are defined as low carbon and renewable energy schemes owned, or part-owned, by community organisations.(3) In carrying out the consultation, the Secretary of State must consult with—(a) current and prospective community energy generators,(b) the community energy industry,(c) the electricity transmission and distribution industries,(d) licensed energy suppliers, and(e) any other persons deemed relevant by the Secretary of State.(4) Within six months of the closure of the consultation conducted under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must respond to the consultation and bring forward proposals to remove the barriers preventing the development of community energy schemes.””

Baroness Boycott: My Lords, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House on this very simple, good-for-everybody amendment.
Ayes 208, Noes 205.

Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 274 agreed.

Motion on Amendments 275 to 338

Lord Callanan: Moved by Lord Callanan
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 275 to 338.
275: Page 240, line 6, leave out Clause 273
276: Clause 274, page 241, line 22, leave out “this Act or any provision made” and insert “provision made by or under this Act or”
277: Clause 275, page 241, line 35, after “State” insert “, the Treasury”
278: Clause 275, page 242, line 32, leave out subsection (11)
279: Clause 277, page 243, line 6, leave out “Chapters 1 and 3” and insert “Chapter 1”
280: Clause 277, page 243, line 6, at end insert “, except section (Power to modify Gas Act 1986 in relation to hydrogen)”
281: Clause 277, page 243, line 6, at end insert—“(ca) Chapter 3 of Part 3, except section (Renewable liquid heating fuel obligations);”
282: Clause 277, page 243, line 9, after “Parts” insert “9,”
283: Clause 277, page 243, line 16, at end insert—“(aa) sections (Key definitions for Part), (Designation), (Designation: procedure), (Revocation of designation), (Grant, extension or restriction of gas transporter licence by Secretary of State), (Applications for grant etc of gas transporter licence), (Modification of gas transporter licence by Secretary of State), (Scope of modification powers under section (Modification of gas transporter licence by Secretary of State)), (Procedure etc relating to modifications under section (Modification of gas transporter licence by Secretary of State)), (Information and advice), (Conditions of gas transporter licences for conveyance of hydrogen), (Secretary of State directions to the GEMA) and (Repeal of Part);”
284: Clause 277, page 243, line 17, at end insert—“(ba) section (Power to modify Gas Act 1986 in relation to hydrogen);”
285: Clause 277, page 243, line 17, at end insert—“(bb) section (Renewable liquid heating fuel obligations);”
286: Clause 277, page 243, line 22, at end insert—  “(h) sections (Great British Nuclear), (Crown status), (Great British Nuclear’s objects), (Financial assistance), (Secretary of State directions and guidance), (Annual report), (Annual accounts), (Transfer schemes), (Transfer schemes: compensation), (Transfer schemes: taxation), (Transfer schemes: provision of information or assistance), (Reimbursement and compensation in connection with designation) and (Pension arrangements in connection with Great British Nuclear);”
287: Clause 277, page 243, line 23, leave out subsection (3) and insert—“(3) Chapter 2 of Part 7 extends to England and Wales only, subject to subsection (5).”
288: Clause 278, page 243, line 36, at end insert—“(za) in Chapter 1 of Part 2—(i) section 56;(ii) sections 57 and 58, so far as relating to hydrogen production revenue support contracts and a hydrogen production counterparty;(iii) sections 61 and 62;(iv) section 77(1) to (3), so far as relating to a designation under section 61;(v) section 79, so far as relating to hydrogen production revenue support contracts and a hydrogen production counterparty;(vi) sections 81 and 84, so far as relating to the exercise of any power that comes into force in accordance with this paragraph;and in this paragraph “hydrogen production revenue support contract” and “hydrogen production counterparty” have the same meaning as in that Chapter;”
289: Clause 278, page 243, line 36, at end insert—“(za) section 103;”
290: Clause 278, page 243, line 36, at end insert—“(za) Chapter 1 of Part 3;”
291: Clause 278, page 243, line 36, at end insert—“(za) section 115;”
292: Clause 278, page 243, line 36, at end insert—“(za) section 117;”
293: Clause 278, page 243, line 36, at end insert— “(za) in Part 4—(i) sections 127 and 128;(ii) section 132 (including Schedule 7) and section 133 (including Schedule 9);(iii) section 136(2) and (3), so far as relating to other provisions in force by virtue of this paragraph;(iv) sections 138 and 139;”
294: Clause 278, page 243, line 36, at end insert—“(za) section 160 (including Schedule 13);”
295: Clause 278, page 243, line 36, at end insert—“(za) section (Revenue certainty scheme for sustainable aviation fuel producers: consultation and report);”
296: Clause 278, page 243, line 36, at end insert—“(za) section (Renewable liquid heating fuel obligations);”
297: Clause 278, page 243, line 37, at end insert—“(aa) section 170;”
298: Clause 278, page 244, line 1, after “sections” insert “260,”
299: Clause 278, page 244, line 2, leave out “Chapter 3” and insert “Chapters 3 and 4”
300: Clause 278, page 244, line 7, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—“(b) Chapters 1 to 3, sections (Key definitions), (Retention of information and samples), (Preparation and agreement of information and samples plans), (Information and samples plans: supplementary), (Information and samples coordinators), (Powers of OGA to require information and samples), (Prohibition on disclosure of information  or samples obtained by OGA), (Power of Secretary of State to require information and samples), (Power of OGA to give sanctions notices), (Enforcement notices) (Financial penalty notices), (Revocation notices), (Operator removal notices), (Duty of OGA to give sanction warning notices), (Publication of details of sanctions), (Subsequent sanctions notices), (Withdrawal of sanction notices), (Sanctions: information powers), (Appeals in connection with Chapter), (Procedure for enforcement decisions) and (Interpretation of Chapter) and Chapter 5 of Part 2, so far as not already in force by virtue of subsection (2);”
301: Clause 278, page 244, line 7, at end insert—“(ba) sections (Key definitions for Part), (Designation), (Designation: procedure), (Revocation of designation), (Grant, extension or restriction of gas transporter licence by Secretary of State), (Applications for grant etc of gas transporter licence), (Modification of gas transporter licence by Secretary of State), (Scope of modification powers under section (Modification of gas transporter licence by Secretary of State)), (Procedure etc relating to modifications under section (Modification of gas transporter licence by Secretary of State)), (Information and advice), (Conditions of gas transporter licences for conveyance of hydrogen), (Secretary of State directions to the GEMA) and (Repeal of Part);”
302: Clause 278, page 244, line 8, leave out “Chapter 2 of Part 3” and insert “section 114”
303: Clause 278, page 244, line 8, at end insert—“(ca) section (Power to modify Gas Act 1986 in relation to hydrogen);”
304: Clause 278, page 244, line 9, leave out paragraph (d)
305: Clause 278, page 244, line 10, at end insert—“(ea) section (Principal objectives of Secretary of State and GEMA);”
306: Clause 278, page 244, line 11, leave out paragraph (f)
307: Clause 278, page 244, line 12, leave out “170” and insert “169”
308: Clause 278, page 244, line 12, at end insert—“(ga) sections (Electricity support payments for energy-intensive industries) and (Levy to fund electricity support payments);”
309: Clause 278, page 244, line 16, leave out paragraph (k)
310: Clause 278, page 244, line 16, at end insert—“(l) section (Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage: implementation power).”
311: Clause 279, page 244, line 29, leave out subsection (2)
312: Schedule 1, page 245, line 31, leave out from beginning to second “the” in line 32 and insert—“(d) after subsection (10) insert—“(10A) For the purposes of subsection (5)””
313: Insert the following Schedule—“SCHEDULESection (Prohibition on disclosure of information or samples obtained by OGA)PERMITTED DISCLOSURES OF MATERIAL OBTAINED BY OGADisclosure by OGA to specified persons1 (1) Section (Prohibition on disclosure of information or samples obtained by OGA) does not prohibit a disclosure of protected material by the OGA which—(a) is made to a person mentioned in column 1 of the table below,(b) is made for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out of that person’s functions, and(c) is a disclosure of protected material obtained by the OGA under a provision mentioned in the corresponding entry of column 2 of the table.  Column 1Column 2A Minister of the CrownSection (Power of OGA to require information and samples)or (Sanctions: information powers)His Majesty’s Revenue and CustomsSection (Power of OGA to require information and samples)or (Sanctions: information powers)The Competition and Markets AuthoritySection (Power of OGA to require information and samples)or (Sanctions: information powers)The Scottish Ministers Section (Power of OGA to require information and samples)The Welsh Ministers Section (Power of OGA to require information and samples)A Northern Ireland Department Section (Power of OGA to require information and samples)The Office for Budget Responsibility Section (Power of OGA to require information and samples)or (Sanctions: information powers)An enforcing authoritySection (Power of OGA to require information and samples)or (Sanctions: information powers)The Statistics BoardSection (Power of OGA to require information and samples)or (Sanctions: information powers)The GEMASection (Power of OGA to require information and samples)or (Sanctions: information powers)The Crown EstateSection (Power of OGA to require information and samples)A manager of the Crown Estate in ScotlandSection (Power of OGA to require information and samples)(2) In the table—“enforcing authority” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (see section 18(7)(a) of that Act);“manager of the Crown Estate in Scotland” means a person who for the time being is discharging functions in relation to the management of any property, rights or interests to which section 90B(5) of the Scotland Act 1998 applies;“Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975.(3) Section (Prohibition on disclosure of information or samples obtained by OGA) does not prohibit a disclosure of protected material by the OGA which—(a) is a disclosure of protected material obtained by it under section (Power of OGA to require information and samples),(b) is made to the Natural Environment Research Council, or any other similar body carrying on geological activities, and(c) is made for the purpose of enabling the body to prepare and publish reports and surveys of a general nature using information derived from the protected material.(4) A person to whom protected material is disclosed by virtue of sub-paragraph(1) or (3) may use the protected material only for the purpose mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b) or (3)(c) (as the case may be).(5) Section (Prohibition on disclosure of information or samples obtained by OGA) does not prohibit a person mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) from disclosing the protected material so far as necessary for the purpose mentioned in that sub-paragraph.(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the table in sub-paragraph (1)—(a) to remove a person from column 1,(b) to add to column 1 a person to whom sub-paragraph (7) applies, or(c) to add, remove or change entries in column 2.(7) This sub-paragraph applies to—(a) persons holding office under the Crown;(b) persons in the service or employment of the Crown;(c) persons acting on behalf of the Crown;(d) government departments;(e) publicly owned companies as defined in section 6 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.(8) Regulations under sub-paragraph (6) are subject to the affirmative procedure.Disclosure required for returns and reports prepared by OGA2 (1) Section (Prohibition on disclosure of information or samples obtained by OGA) does not prohibit the OGA from using protected material obtained by the OGA under section (Power of OGA to require information and samples) for the purpose of—(a) preparing such returns and reports as may be required under obligations imposed by or under any Act;(b) preparing and publishing reports and surveys of a general nature using information derived from the protected material.(2) Section (Prohibition on disclosure of information or samples obtained by OGA) does not prohibit the OGA from disclosing protected material so far as necessary for those purposes.Disclosure in exercise of certain OGA powers3 Section (Prohibition on disclosure of information or samples obtained by OGA) does not prohibit a disclosure of protected material if it is made in the exercise of the OGA’s powers under section (Publication of details of sanctions) (publication of details of sanctions).Disclosure after specified period4 (1) Section (Prohibition on disclosure of information or samples obtained by OGA) does not prohibit protected material obtained by the OGA under section (Power of OGA to require information and samples) from being—(a) published, or(b) made available to the public (where the protected material includes samples),by the OGA or a subsequent holder at such time as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(2) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1) may include provision permitting protected material to be published, or made available to the public, immediately after it is provided to a person.  (3) Before making regulations under sub-paragraph (1), the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(4) Sub-paragraph (3) does not apply if the Secretary of State is satisfied that consultation is unnecessary having regard to consultation carried out by the OGA in relation to what time should be specified in regulations under sub-paragraph (1).(5) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1) are subject to the affirmative procedure.(6) In determining the time to be specified in respect of protected material in regulations under sub-paragraph (1), the Secretary of State must have regard to the following factors—(a) whether the specified time will allow owners of protected material a reasonable period of time to satisfy the main purpose for which they acquired or created the material;(b) any potential benefits to the [carbon storage] industry of protected material being published or made available at the specified time;(c) any potential risk that the specified time may discourage persons from acquiring or creating carbon storage information or carbon storage samples;(d) any other factors the Secretary of State considers relevant.(7) In balancing the factors mentioned in sub-paragraph (6)(a) to (d), the Secretary of State must take into account the principal objectives of the Secretary of State set out in section 1(1).(8) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (6)(a), the owner of protected material is the person by whom, or on whose behalf, the protected material was provided to the OGA under section (Power of OGA to require information and samples).Disclosure with appropriate consent5 (1) Section (Prohibition on disclosure of information or samples obtained by OGA) does not prohibit a disclosure of protected material if it is made with the appropriate consent.(2) For this purpose a disclosure is made with the appropriate consent if—(a) in the case of disclosure by the OGA, the original owner consents to the disclosure;(b) in the case of disclosure by a subsequent holder—(i) the OGA consents to the disclosure, and(ii) where the protected material in question was provided to the OGA under section (Power of OGA to require information and samples), the OGA confirms that the original owner of the material also consents to the disclosure.(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2), the original owner of protected material provided to the OGA is the person by whom, or on whose behalf, the protected material was so provided.Disclosure required by legislation6 Section (Prohibition on disclosure of information or samples obtained by OGA) does not prohibit a disclosure of protected material required by virtue of an obligation imposed by or under this or any other Act.Disclosure for purpose of proceedings7 (1) Section (Prohibition on disclosure of information or samples obtained by OGA) does not prohibit a disclosure of protected material by the OGA for the purposes of, or in connection with—(a) civil proceedings, or(b) arbitration proceedings.(2) Section (Prohibition on disclosure of information or samples obtained by OGA) does not prohibit a disclosure of protected material by the OGA for the purposes of, or in connection with—(a) the investigation or prosecution of criminal offences, or(b) the prevention of criminal activity.”
314: Insert the following Schedule— “SCHEDULE Section (Appeals)  CARBON STORAGE INFORMATION AND SAMPLES: APPEALSPART 1APPEALS AGAINST DECISIONS RELATING TO INFORMATION AND SAMPLESAppeals in relation to information and samples plans1 (1) A person affected by any decision of the OGA to which effect is given by the preparation of an information and samples plan may appeal against it to the Tribunal—(a) on the ground that the decision was not within the powers of the OGA, or(b) on the ground that the plan is unreasonable.(2) On an appeal under this paragraph the Tribunal may—(a) affirm, vary or quash the decision under appeal,(b) remit the decision under appeal to the OGA for reconsideration with such directions (if any) as the Tribunal considers appropriate, or(c) substitute its own decision for the decision under appeal.Appeals against notices requiring provision of information or samples2 (1) A person affected by any decision of the OGA to which effect is given by the giving of a notice requiring the provision of information or samples under section (Power of OGA to require information and samples) may appeal against it to the Tribunal—(a) on the ground that the decision was not within the powers of the OGA, or(b) on the ground that the length of time given to comply with the notice is unreasonable.(2) On an appeal under this paragraph the Tribunal may—(a) affirm, vary or quash the decision under appeal,(b) remit the decision under appeal to the OGA for reconsideration with such directions (if any) as the Tribunal considers appropriate, or(c) substitute its own decision for the decision under appeal.PART 2 APPEALS RELATING TO ENFORCEMENT OF SANCTIONABLE REQUIREMENTSAppeals in relation to sanction notices3 (1) Where a sanction notice is given under section (Power of OGA to give sanction notices) in respect of a failure to comply with a sanctionable requirement, an appeal may be made—(a) under paragraph 4 (on the ground that there was no such failure to comply);(b) under paragraph 5 (against the sanction imposed by the notice).(2) Where an appeal is made in relation to a sanction notice, the notice ceases to have effect until a decision is made by the Tribunal to confirm, vary or cancel the notice.(3) Where, on an appeal made in relation to a sanction notice—(a) the Tribunal makes a decision to confirm or vary the notice, and(b) an appeal is or may be made in relation to that decision,the Tribunal, or the Upper Tribunal, may further suspend the effect of the notice pending a decision which disposes of proceedings on such an appeal.Appeals against finding of failure to comply4 (1) An appeal may be made to the Tribunal by the person, or by any of the persons, to whom a sanction notice is given in respect of a failure to comply with a sanctionable requirement, on the grounds that the person, or persons, did not fail to comply with the requirement.(2) On an appeal under this paragraph, the Tribunal may confirm or cancel the sanction notice.  (3) Where sanction notices are given on more than one occasion in respect of the same failure to comply with a sanctionable requirement—(a) an appeal under this paragraph may be made only in relation to the sanction notice, or any of the sanction notices, given on the first of those occasions, and(b) appeals in relation to sanction notices given on subsequent occasions in respect of that failure to comply may be made only under paragraph 5.Appeals against sanction imposed5 (1) Where a sanction notice is given in respect of a failure to comply with a sanctionable requirement, a person mentioned in sub- paragraph (2) may appeal to the Tribunal against any of the decisions of the OGA mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) (as to the sanction imposed by the notice) on the grounds mentioned in sub-paragraph (4).(2) The persons who may appeal are—(a) the person, or any of the persons, to whom the notice was given, and(b) in the case of an operator removal notice under section (Operator removal notices), the licensee under whose carbon storage licence the exploration operator operates.(3) The decisions against which an appeal may be made are—(a) where an enforcement notice has been given, the decision as to—(i) the measures that are required to be taken for the purposes of compliance with the sanctionable requirement, or(ii) the period for compliance with the sanctionable requirement;(b) where a financial penalty notice has been given, the decision—(i) to impose a financial penalty, or(ii) as to the amount of the financial penalty imposed;(c) where a revocation notice has been given, the decision to terminate the carbon storage licence or to revoke the storage permit;(d) where an operator removal notice has been given, the decision to require the removal of the exploration operator.(4) The grounds on which an appeal may be made are that the decision of the OGA—(a) was unreasonable, or(b) was not within the powers of the OGA.(5) On an appeal under this paragraph against a decision made in relation to an enforcement notice, the Tribunal may—(a) confirm or quash the decision, in the case of a decision mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(a)(i) (remedial action), or(b) confirm or vary the decision, in the case of a decision mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(a)(ii) (period for compliance),and confirm, vary or cancel the enforcement notice accordingly.(6) On an appeal under this paragraph against a decision made in relation to a financial penalty notice, the Tribunal may—(a) confirm or quash the decision, in the case of a decision mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(b)(i) (imposition of penalty), or(b) confirm or vary the decision, in the case of a decision mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(b)(ii) (amount of penalty),and confirm, vary or cancel the financial penalty notice accordingly.(7) The Tribunal must have regard to any guidance issued by the OGA under section (Financial penalty notices)(6)(a) when deciding whether to confirm or vary a decision as to the amount of a financial penalty under sub-paragraph (6)(b).(8) On an appeal under this paragraph against a decision to terminate a carbon storage licence, to revoke a storage permit or to require the removal of an exploration operator the Tribunal may—(a) confirm the decision,(b) vary the decision by changing the revocation date or the removal date, as the case may be, or  (c) quash the decision,and confirm, vary or cancel the sanction notice in question accordingly.(9) Where a decision is quashed under sub-paragraph (5)(a), (6)(a) or (8), the Tribunal may remit the decision to the OGA for reconsideration with such directions (if any) as the Tribunal considers appropriate.Appeals against information requirements6 (1) A person to whom a notice is given under section (Sanctions: information powers) may appeal against it to the Tribunal on the grounds that—(a) the giving of the notice is not within the powers of the OGA, or(b) the length of time given to comply with the notice is unreasonable.(2) On an appeal under this paragraph the Tribunal may—(a) confirm, vary or cancel the notice, or(b) remit the matter under appeal to the OGA for reconsideration with such directions (if any) as the Tribunal considers appropriate.”
315: Schedule 7, page 279, line 26, leave out “or rights” and insert “, rights or liabilities”
316: Schedule 7, page 280, line 6, at end insert—“(2A) Any requirement imposed on a person by a transfer scheme is enforceable by the Secretary of State in civil proceedings—(a) for an injunction,(b) for specific performance of a statutory duty under section 45 of the Court of Session Act 1988, or(c) for any other appropriate remedy or relief.”
317: Schedule 7, page 280, line 35, leave out “appointed by the Secretary of State and the transferor”
318: Schedule 7, page 281, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (4)
319: Schedule 7, page 282, line 7, at end insert—“(3A) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this paragraph is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the House of Commons.”
320: Schedule 7, page 282, line 10, leave out “, land and buildings transaction tax, land transaction tax”
321: Schedule 8, page 289, line 1, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—“(a) such specified pensions information, or(b) such specified assistance,as the Secretary of State may reasonably require in preparation for or in connection with the exercise of a power conferred on the Secretary of State by this Schedule.”
322: Schedule 12, page 303, line 15, leave out from “in” to “of” in line 17 and insert “a notice under section 142(1) of the Energy Act 2023 in relation to a designated central system (within the meaning of Part 5”
323: Schedule 12, page 303, line 25, leave out from “in” to “of” in line 26 and insert “a notice under section 142(1) of the Energy Act 2023 in relation to a designated central system (within the meaning of Part 5”
324: Schedule 12, page 304, line 4, leave out from “in” to “of” in line 6 and insert “a notice under section 142(1) of the Energy Act 2023 in relation to a designated central system (within the meaning of Part 5”
325: Schedule 12, page 304, line 14, leave out from “in” to “of” in line 15 and insert “a notice under section 142(1) of the Energy Act 2023 in relation to a designated central system (within the meaning of Part 5”
326: Schedule 12, page 305, line 6, leave out paragraph (a)
327: Schedule 12, page 305, line 19, leave out paragraph (d)
328: Schedule 19, page 369, line 16, at end insert—  “PART A1 PETROLEUM (PRODUCTION) (LANDWARD AREAS) REGULATIONS 1995A1 In the Petroleum (Production) (Landward Areas) Regulations 1995 (S.I. 1995/1436), Schedule 3 (model clauses for petroleum exploration and development licences in landward areas) is amended as follows.A2 After clause 37 insert—“37A Change in control of Licensee(1) This clause applies if—(a) the Licensee is a company, or(b) where two or more persons are the Licensee, any of those persons is a company,and references in this clause to a company are to such a company.(2) A change in control of a company is not permitted without the consent of the Oil and Gas Authority (“the OGA”).(3) There is a “change in control” of a company if a person takes control of the company, not having previously been a person who controlled the company.(4) If a change in control of a company is contemplated, the company must apply in writing to the OGA for consent at least three months before the date on which it is proposed that the change would occur (if consent were given).(5) The OGA may—(a) consent to the change in control unconditionally,(b) consent to the change in control subject to conditions, or(c) refuse consent to the change in control.(6) If the OGA proposes to grant consent subject to any condition or to refuse consent, the OGA must, before making a final decision—(a) give the company an opportunity to make representations, and(b) consider any representations that are made.(7) The general rule is that the OGA must decide an application within three months of receiving it, but the OGA may delay its decision by notifying the interested parties in writing.(8) Conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b) may be imposed on the person taking control of the company (as well as on the company), and may include—(a) conditions relating to the arrangements for the change in control, including the date by which it must occur,(b) conditions relating to the performance of activities permitted by this licence, and(c) financial conditions.(9) The OGA’s decision on the application, and any conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b), must be notified in writing to the interested parties.(10) In this clause “the interested parties” means—(a) the company,(b) the person who (if consent were granted) would take control of the company, and(c) if the company and another person or persons are the Licensee, that other person or those other persons.(11) For the purposes of this clause, the question of whether a person has control of a company is to be determined in accordance with the test set out in clause 37(4).”A3 (1) Clause 38 (power of revocation) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (2)—(a) after sub-paragraph (i) insert—“(j) if the Licensee is a company, any breach of a condition subject to which the Oil and Gas Authority gave its consent to a change in control of the Licensee (see clause 37A);  (k) if the Licensee is a company, any failure to provide full and accurate information in response to a notice given by the Oil and Gas Authority to that company under section 5D of the Petroleum Act 1998;”;(b) in the closing words, after “(g)” insert “or (j) or (k)”.(3) Omit paragraphs (3) to (5).A4 (1) Clause 38A (power of partial revocation) is amended as follows.(2) For paragraph (1) substitute—“(1) This clause applies in a case where two or more persons are the Licensee and—(a) an event mentioned in clause 38(2)(c), (d), (e) or (g) occurs in relation to one of those persons;(b) an event mentioned in clause 38(2)(b) occurs which consists of a breach of clause 37A(2) or (4) in relation to a change in control of one of those persons;(c) an event mentioned in clause 38(2)(j) occurs in relation to a change in control of one of those persons (see clause 37A); or(d) an event mentioned in clause 38(2)(k) occurs which consists of a failure by one of those persons as mentioned in that provision.”(3) In paragraph (2), for “or (b)” substitute “, (b), (c) or (d)”.PART A2 PETROLEUM (CURRENT MODEL CLAUSES) ORDER 1999IntroductionA5 The Petroleum (Current Model Clauses) Order 1999 (S.I. 1999/160) is amended in accordance with this Part of this Schedule.Part 2 of Schedule 2A6 Part 2 of Schedule 2 (current model clauses for controlled waters or seaward production licences deriving from Schedule 2 to the 1964 Regulations and Schedule 4 to the 1966 Regulations) is amended in accordance with paragraphs A7 to A9.A7 After clause 38 insert—“38A Change in control of Licensee(1) This clause applies if—(a) the Licensee is a company, or(b) where two or more persons are the Licensee, any of those persons is a company,and references in this clause to a company are to such a company.(2) A change in control of a company is not permitted without the consent of the Oil and Gas Authority (“the OGA”).(3) There is a “change in control” of a company if a person takes control of the company, not having previously been a person who controlled the company.(4) If a change in control of a company is contemplated, the company must apply in writing to the OGA for consent at least three months before the date on which it is proposed that the change would occur (if consent were given).(5) The OGA may—(a) consent to the change in control unconditionally,(b) consent to the change in control subject to conditions, or(c) refuse consent to the change in control.(6) If the OGA proposes to grant consent subject to any condition or to refuse consent, the OGA must, before making a final decision—(a) give the company an opportunity to make representations, and(b) consider any representations that are made.(7) The general rule is that the OGA must decide an application within three months of receiving it, but the OGA may delay its decision by notifying the interested parties in writing.  (8) Conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b) may be imposed on the person taking control of the company (as well as on the company), and may include—(a) conditions relating to the arrangements for the change in control, including the date by which it must occur,(b) conditions relating to the performance of activities permitted by this licence, and(c) financial conditions.(9) The OGA’s decision on the application, and any conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b), must be notified in writing to the interested parties.(10) In this clause “the interested parties” means—(a) the company,(b) the person who (if consent were granted) would take control of the company, and(c) if the company and another person or persons are the Licensee, that other person or those other persons.(11) For the purposes of this clause, the question of whether a person has control of a company is to be determined in accordance with the test set out in clause 38(4).”A8 (1) Clause 39 (power of revocation) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (2)—(a) after sub-paragraph (i) insert—“(j) if the Licensee is a company, any breach of a condition subject to which the Oil and Gas Authority gave its consent to a change in control of the Licensee (see clause 38A);(k) if the Licensee is a company, any failure to provide full and accurate information in response to a notice given by the Oil and Gas Authority to that company under section 5D of the Act of 1998;”;(b) in the closing words, after “(g)” insert “or (j) or (k)”.(3) Omit paragraphs (3) to (5).A9 (1) Clause 39A (power of partial revocation) is amended as follows.(2) For paragraph (1) substitute—“(1) This clause applies in a case where two or more persons are the Licensee and—(a) an event mentioned in clause 39(2)(c), (d), (e) or (g) occurs in relation to one of those persons;(b) an event mentioned in clause 39(2)(b) occurs which consists of a breach of clause 38A(2) or (4) in relation to a change in control of one of those persons;(c) an event mentioned in clause 39(2)(j) occurs in relation to a change in control of one of those persons (see clause 38A); or(d) an event mentioned in clause 39(2)(k) occurs which consists of a failure by one of those persons as mentioned in that provision.”(3) In paragraph (2), for “or (b)” substitute “, (b), (c) or (d)”.Part 2 of Schedule 3A10 Part 2 of Schedule 3 (current model clauses for landward production licences deriving from Schedule 3 to the 1966 regulations) is amended in accordance with paragraphs A11 to A13.A11 After clause 36 insert—“36A Change in control of Licensee(1) This clause applies if—(a) the Licensee is a company, or(b) where two or more persons are the Licensee, any of those persons is a company,and references in this clause to a company are to such a company.(2) A change in control of a company is not permitted without the consent of the Oil and Gas Authority (“the OGA”).(3) There is a “change in control” of a company if a person takes control of the company, not having previously been a person who controlled the company.  (4) If a change in control of a company is contemplated, the company must apply in writing to the OGA for consent at least three months before the date on which it is proposed that the change would occur (if consent were given).(5) The OGA may—(a) consent to the change in control unconditionally,(b) consent to the change in control subject to conditions, or(c) refuse consent to the change in control.(6) If the OGA proposes to grant consent subject to any condition or to refuse consent, the OGA must, before making a final decision—(a) give the company an opportunity to make representations, and(b) consider any representations that are made.(7) The general rule is that the OGA must decide an application within three months of receiving it, but the OGA may delay its decision by notifying the interested parties in writing.(8) Conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b) may be imposed on the person taking control of the company (as well as on the company), and may include—(a) conditions relating to the arrangements for the change in control, including the date by which it must occur,(b) conditions relating to the performance of activities permitted by this licence, and(c) financial conditions.(9) The OGA’s decision on the application, and any conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b), must be notified in writing to the interested parties.(10) In this clause “the interested parties” means—(a) the company,(b) the person who (if consent were granted) would take control of the company, and(c) if the company and another person or persons are the Licensee, that other person or those other persons.(11) For the purposes of this clause, the question of whether a person has control of a company is to be determined in accordance with the test set out in clause 36(3).”A12(1) Clause 37 (power of revocation) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (2)—(a) after sub-paragraph (i) insert—“(j) if the Licensee is a company, any breach of a condition subject to which the Oil and Gas Authority gave its consent to a change in control of the Licensee (see clause 36A);(k) if the Licensee is a company, any failure to provide full and accurate information in response to a notice given by the Oil and Gas Authority to that company under section 5D of the Act of 1998;”;(b) in the closing words, after “(g)” insert “or (j) or (k)”.(3) Omit paragraphs (3) to (5).A13(1) Clause 37A (power of partial revocation) is amended as follows.(2) For paragraph (1) substitute—“(1) This clause applies in a case where two or more persons are the Licensee and—(a) an event mentioned in clause 37(2)(c), (d), (e) or (g) occurs in relation to one of those persons;(b) an event mentioned in clause 37(2)(b) occurs which consists of a breach of clause 36A(2) or (4) in relation to a change in control of one of those persons;(c) an event mentioned in clause 37(2)(j) occurs in relation to a change in control of one of those persons (see clause 36A); or(d) an event mentioned in clause 37(2)(k) occurs which consists of a failure by one of those persons as mentioned in that provision.”  (3) In paragraph (2), for “or (b)” substitute “, (b), (c) or (d)”.Part 2 of Schedule 4A14 Part 2 of Schedule 4 (current model clauses for landward production licences deriving from Schedule 4 to the 1976 Regulations or Schedule 4 to the 1982 Regulations) is amended in accordance with paragraphs A15 to A17.A15 After clause 37 insert—“37A Change in control of Licensee(1) This clause applies if—(a) the Licensee is a company, or(b) where two or more persons are the Licensee, any of those persons is a company,and references in this clause to a company are to such a company.(2) A change in control of a company is not permitted without the consent of the Oil and Gas Authority (“the OGA”).(3) There is a “change in control” of a company if a person takes control of the company, not having previously been a person who controlled the company.(4) If a change in control of a company is contemplated, the company must apply in writing to the OGA for consent at least three months before the date on which it is proposed that the change would occur (if consent were given).(5) The OGA may—(a) consent to the change in control unconditionally,(b) consent to the change in control subject to conditions, or(c) refuse consent to the change in control.(6) If the OGA proposes to grant consent subject to any condition or to refuse consent, the OGA must, before making a final decision—(a) give the company an opportunity to make representations, and(b) consider any representations that are made.(7) The general rule is that the OGA must decide an application within three months of receiving it, but the OGA may delay its decision by notifying the interested parties in writing.(8) Conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b) may be imposed on the person taking control of the company (as well as on the company), and may include—(a) conditions relating to the arrangements for the change in control, including the date by which it must occur,(b) conditions relating to the performance of activities permitted by this licence, and(c) financial conditions.(9) The OGA’s decision on the application, and any conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b), must be notified in writing to the interested parties.(10) In this clause “the interested parties” means—(a) the company,(b) the person who (if consent were granted) would take control of the company, and(c) if the company and another person or persons are the Licensee, that other person or those other persons.(11) For the purposes of this clause, the question of whether a person has control of a company is to be determined in accordance with the test set out in clause 37(3).”A16(1) Clause 38 (power of revocation) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (2)—(a) after sub-paragraph (i) insert—“(j) if the Licensee is a company, any breach of a condition subject to which the Oil and Gas Authority gave its consent to a change in control of the Licensee (see clause 37A);  (k) if the Licensee is a company, any failure to provide full and accurate information in response to a notice given by the Oil and Gas Authority to that company under section 5D of the Act of 1998;”;(b) in the closing words, after “(g)” insert “or (j) or (k)”.(3) Omit paragraphs (3) to (5).A17(1) Clause 38A (power of partial revocation) is amended as follows.(2) For paragraph (1) substitute—“(1) This clause applies in a case where two or more persons are the Licensee and—(a) an event mentioned in clause 38(2)(c), (d), (e) or (g) occurs in relation to one of those persons;(b) an event mentioned in clause 38(2)(b) occurs which consists of a breach of clause 37A(2) or (4) in relation to a change in control of one of those persons;(c) an event mentioned in clause 38(2)(j) occurs in relation to a change in control of one of those persons (see clause 37A); or(d) an event mentioned in clause 38(2)(k) occurs which consists of a failure by one of those persons as mentioned in that provision.”(3) In paragraph (2), for “or (b)” substitute “, (b), (c) or (d)”.Part 2 of Schedule 5A18 Part 2 of Schedule 5 (current model clauses for seaward production licences deriving from Schedule 5 to the 1976 Regulations) is amended in accordance with paragraphs A19 to A21.A19 After clause 39 insert—“39A Change in control of Licensee(1) This clause applies if—(a) the Licensee is a company, or(b) where two or more persons are the Licensee, any of those persons is a company,and references in this clause to a company are to such a company.(2) A change in control of a company is not permitted without the consent of the Oil and Gas Authority (“the OGA”).(3) There is a “change in control” of a company if a person takes control of the company, not having previously been a person who controlled the company.(4) If a change in control of a company is contemplated, the company must apply in writing to the OGA for consent at least three months before the date on which it is proposed that the change would occur (if consent were given).(5) The OGA may—(a) consent to the change in control unconditionally,(b) consent to the change in control subject to conditions, or(c) refuse consent to the change in control.(6) If the OGA proposes to grant consent subject to any condition or to refuse consent, the OGA must, before making a final decision—(a) give the company an opportunity to make representations, and(b) consider any representations that are made.(7) The general rule is that the OGA must decide an application within three months of receiving it, but the OGA may delay its decision by notifying the interested parties in writing.(8) Conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b) may be imposed on the person taking control of the company (as well as on the company), and may include—(a) conditions relating to the arrangements for the change in control, including the date by which it must occur,(b) conditions relating to the performance of activities permitted by this licence, and(c) financial conditions.  (9) The OGA’s decision on the application, and any conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b), must be notified in writing to the interested parties.(10) In this clause “the interested parties” means—(a) the company,(b) the person who (if consent were granted) would take control of the company, and(c) if the company and another person or persons are the Licensee, that other person or those other persons.(11) For the purposes of this clause, the question of whether a person has control of a company is to be determined in accordance with the test set out in clause 39(4).”A20(1) Clause 40 (power of revocation) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (2)—(a) after sub-paragraph (i) insert—“(j) if the Licensee is a company, any breach of a condition subject to which the Oil and Gas Authority gave its consent to a change in control of the Licensee (see clause 39A);(k) if the Licensee is a company, any failure to provide full and accurate information in response to a notice given by the Oil and Gas Authority to that company under section 5D of the Act of 1998;”;(b) in the closing words, after “(g)” insert “or (j) or (k)”.(3) Omit paragraphs (3) to (5).A21(1) Clause 40A (power of partial revocation) is amended as follows.(2) For paragraph (1) substitute—“(1) This clause applies in a case where two or more persons are the Licensee and—(a) an event mentioned in clause 40(2)(c), (d), (e) or (g) occurs in relation to one of those persons;(b) an event mentioned in clause 40(2)(b) occurs which consists of a breach of clause 39A(2) or (4) in relation to a change in control of one of those persons;(c) an event mentioned in clause 40(2)(j) occurs in relation to a change in control of one of those persons (see clause 39A); or(d) an event mentioned in clause 40(2)(k) occurs which consists of a failure by one of those persons as mentioned in that provision.”(3) In paragraph (2), for “or (b)” substitute “, (b), (c) or (d)”.Part 2 of Schedule 6A22 Part 2 of Schedule 6 (current model clauses for seaward production licences deriving from Schedule 5 to the 1982 Regulations) is amended in accordance with paragraphs A23 to A25.A23 After clause 38 insert—“38A Change in control of Licensee(1) This clause applies if—(a) the Licensee is a company, or(b) where two or more persons are the Licensee, any of those persons is a company,and references in this clause to a company are to such a company.(2) A change in control of a company is not permitted without the consent of the Oil and Gas Authority (“the OGA”).(3) There is a “change in control” of a company if a person takes control of the company, not having previously been a person who controlled the company.(4) If a change in control of a company is contemplated, the company must apply in writing to the OGA for consent at least three months before the date on which it is proposed that the change would occur (if consent were given).(5) The OGA may—(a) consent to the change in control unconditionally,(b) consent to the change in control subject to conditions, or  (c) refuse consent to the change in control.(6) If the OGA proposes to grant consent subject to any condition or to refuse consent, the OGA must, before making a final decision—(a) give the company an opportunity to make representations, and(b) consider any representations that are made.(7) The general rule is that the OGA must decide an application within three months of receiving it, but the OGA may delay its decision by notifying the interested parties in writing.(8) Conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b) may be imposed on the person taking control of the company (as well as on the company), and may include—(a) conditions relating to the arrangements for the change in control, including the date by which it must occur,(b) conditions relating to the performance of activities permitted by this licence, and(c) financial conditions.(9) The OGA’s decision on the application, and any conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b), must be notified in writing to the interested parties.(10) In this clause “the interested parties” means—(a) the company,(b) the person who (if consent were granted) would take control of the company, and(c) if the company and another person or persons are the Licensee, that other person or those other persons.(11) For the purposes of this clause, the question of whether a person has control of a company is to be determined in accordance with the test set out in clause 38(4).”A24(1) Clause 39 (power of revocation) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (2)—(a) after sub-paragraph (i) insert—“(j) if the Licensee is a company, any breach of a condition subject to which the Oil and Gas Authority gave its consent to a change in control of the Licensee (see clause 38A);(k) if the Licensee is a company, any failure to provide full and accurate information in response to a notice given by the Oil and Gas Authority to that company under section 5D of the Act of 1998;”;(b) in the closing words, after “(g)” insert “or (j) or (k)”.(3) Omit paragraphs (3) to (5).A25(1) Clause 39A (power of partial revocation) is amended as follows.(2) For paragraph (1) substitute—“(1) This clause applies in a case where two or more persons are the Licensee and—(a) an event mentioned in clause 39(2)(c), (d), (e) or (g) occurs in relation to one of those persons;(b) an event mentioned in clause 39(2)(b) occurs which consists of a breach of clause 38A(2) or (4) in relation to a change in control of one of those persons;(c) an event mentioned in clause 39(2)(j) occurs in relation to a change in control of one of those persons (see clause 38A); or(d) an event mentioned in clause 39(2)(k) occurs which consists of a failure by one of those persons as mentioned in that provision.”(3) In paragraph (2), for “or (b)” substitute “, (b), (c) or (d)”.Part 2 of Schedule 8A26 Part 2 of Schedule 8 (current model clauses for landward development licences deriving from Schedule 5 to the 1984 Regulations) is amended in accordance with paragraphs A27 to A29.A27 After clause 35 insert—“35A Change in control of Licensee(1) This clause applies if—  (a) the Licensee is a company, or(b) where two or more persons are the Licensee, any of those persons is a company,and references in this clause to a company are to such a company.(2) A change in control of a company is not permitted without the consent of the Oil and Gas Authority (“the OGA”).(3) There is a “change in control” of a company if a person takes control of the company, not having previously been a person who controlled the company.(4) If a change in control of a company is contemplated, the company must apply in writing to the OGA for consent at least three months before the date on which it is proposed that the change would occur (if consent were given).(5) The OGA may—(a) consent to the change in control unconditionally,(b) consent to the change in control subject to conditions, or(c) refuse consent to the change in control.(6) If the OGA proposes to grant consent subject to any condition or to refuse consent, the OGA must, before making a final decision—(a) give the company an opportunity to make representations, and(b) consider any representations that are made.(7) The general rule is that the OGA must decide an application within three months of receiving it, but the OGA may delay its decision by notifying the interested parties in writing.(8) Conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b) may be imposed on the person taking control of the company (as well as on the company), and may include—(a) conditions relating to the arrangements for the change in control, including the date by which it must occur,(b) conditions relating to the performance of activities permitted by this licence, and(c) financial conditions.(9) The OGA’s decision on the application, and any conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b), must be notified in writing to the interested parties.(10) In this clause “the interested parties” means—(a) the company,(b) the person who (if consent were granted) would take control of the company, and(c) if the company and another person or persons are the Licensee, that other person or those other persons.(11) For the purposes of this clause, the question of whether a person has control of a company is to be determined in accordance with the test set out in clause 35(3).”A28(1) Clause 36 (power of revocation) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (2)—(a) after sub-paragraph (i) insert—“(j) if the Licensee is a company, any breach of a condition subject to which the Oil and Gas Authority gave its consent to a change in control of the Licensee (see clause 35A);(k) if the Licensee is a company, any failure to provide full and accurate information in response to a notice given by the Oil and Gas Authority to that company under section 5D of the Act of 1998;”;(b) in the closing words, after “(g)” insert “or (j) or (k)”.(3) Omit paragraphs (3) to (5).A29(1) Clause 36A (power of partial revocation) is amended as follows.(2) For paragraph (1) substitute—“(1) This clause applies in a case where two or more persons are the Licensee and—  (a) an event mentioned in clause 36(2)(c), (d), (e) or (g) occurs in relation to one of those persons;(b) an event mentioned in clause 36(2)(b) occurs which consists of a breach of clause 35A(2) or (4) in relation to a change in control of one of those persons;(c) an event mentioned in clause 36(2)(j) occurs in relation to a change in control of one of those persons (see clause 35A); or(d) an event mentioned in clause 36(2)(k) occurs which consists of a failure by one of those persons as mentioned in that provision.”(3) In paragraph (2), for “or (b)” substitute “, (b), (c) or (d)”.Part 2 of Schedule 9A30 Part 2 of Schedule 9 (current model clauses for seaward production licences deriving from Schedule 4 to the 1988 Regulations as they had effect before 16 December 1996) is amended in accordance with paragraphs A31 to A33.A31 After clause 41 insert—“41A Change in control of Licensee(1) This clause applies if—(a) the Licensee is a company, or(b) where two or more persons are the Licensee, any of those persons is a company,and references in this clause to a company are to such a company.(2) A change in control of a company is not permitted without the consent of the Oil and Gas Authority (“the OGA”).(3) There is a “change in control” of a company if a person takes control of the company, not having previously been a person who controlled the company.(4) If a change in control of a company is contemplated, the company must apply in writing to the OGA for consent at least three months before the date on which it is proposed that the change would occur (if consent were given).(5) The OGA may—(a) consent to the change in control unconditionally,(b) consent to the change in control subject to conditions, or(c) refuse consent to the change in control.(6) If the OGA proposes to grant consent subject to any condition or to refuse consent, the OGA must, before making a final decision—(a) give the company an opportunity to make representations, and(b) consider any representations that are made.(7) The general rule is that the OGA must decide an application within three months of receiving it, but the OGA may delay its decision by notifying the interested parties in writing.(8) Conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b) may be imposed on the person taking control of the company (as well as on the company), and may include—(a) conditions relating to the arrangements for the change in control, including the date by which it must occur,(b) conditions relating to the performance of activities permitted by this licence, and(c) financial conditions.(9) The OGA’s decision on the application, and any conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b), must be notified in writing to the interested parties.(10) In this clause “the interested parties” means—(a) the company,(b) the person who (if consent were granted) would take control of the company, and(c) if the company and another person or persons are the Licensee, that other person or those other persons.(11) For the purposes of this clause, the question of whether a person has control of a company is to be determined in accordance with the test set out in clause 41(4).”  A32(1) Clause 42 (power of revocation) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (2)—(a) after sub-paragraph (i) insert—“(j) if the Licensee is a company, any breach of a condition subject to which the Oil and Gas Authority gave its consent to a change in control of the Licensee (see clause 41A);(k) if the Licensee is a company, any failure to provide full and accurate information in response to a notice given by the Oil and Gas Authority to that company under section 5D of the Act of 1998;”;(b) in the closing words, after “(g)” insert “or (j) or (k)”.(3) Omit paragraphs (3) to (5).A33(1) Clause 42A (power of partial revocation) is amended as follows.(2) For paragraph (1) substitute—“(1) This clause applies in a case where two or more persons are the Licensee and—(a) an event mentioned in clause 42(2)(c), (d), (e) or (g) occurs in relation to one of those persons;(b) an event mentioned in clause 42(2)(b) occurs which consists of a breach of clause 41A(2) or (4) in relation to a change in control of one of those persons;(c) an event mentioned in clause 42(2)(j) occurs in relation to a change in control of one of those persons (see clause 41A); or(d) an event mentioned in clause 42(2)(k) occurs which consists of a failure by one of those persons as mentioned in that provision.”(3) In paragraph (2), for “or (b)” substitute “, (b), (c) or (d)”.Part 2 of Schedule 10A34 Part 2 of Schedule 10 (current model clauses for seaward production licences deriving from Schedule 4 to the 1988 Regulations as they had effect on and after 16 December 1996) is amended in accordance with paragraphs A35 to A37.A35 After clause 41 insert—“41A Change in control of Licensee(1) This clause applies if—(a) the Licensee is a company, or(b) where two or more persons are the Licensee, any of those persons is a company,and references in this clause to a company are to such a company.(2) A change in control of a company is not permitted without the consent of the Oil and Gas Authority (“the OGA”).(3) There is a “change in control” of a company if a person takes control of the company, not having previously been a person who controlled the company.(4) If a change in control of a company is contemplated, the company must apply in writing to the OGA for consent at least three months before the date on which it is proposed that the change would occur (if consent were given).(5) The OGA may—(a) consent to the change in control unconditionally,(b) consent to the change in control subject to conditions, or(c) refuse consent to the change in control.(6) If the OGA proposes to grant consent subject to any condition or to refuse consent, the OGA must, before making a final decision—(a) give the company an opportunity to make representations, and(b) consider any representations that are made.(7) The general rule is that the OGA must decide an application within three months of receiving it, but the OGA may delay its decision by notifying the interested parties in writing.  (8) Conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b) may be imposed on the person taking control of the company (as well as on the company), and may include—(a) conditions relating to the arrangements for the change in control, including the date by which it must occur,(b) conditions relating to the performance of activities permitted by this licence, and(c) financial conditions.(9) The OGA’s decision on the application, and any conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b), must be notified in writing to the interested parties.(10) In this clause “the interested parties” means—(a) the company,(b) the person who (if consent were granted) would take control of the company, and(c) if the company and another person or persons are the Licensee, that other person or those other persons.(11) For the purposes of this clause, the question of whether a person has control of a company is to be determined in accordance with the test set out in clause 41(4).”A36(1) Clause 42 (power of revocation) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (2)—(a) after sub-paragraph (i) insert—“(j) if the Licensee is a company, any breach of a condition subject to which the Oil and Gas Authority gave its consent to a change in control of the Licensee (see clause 41A);(k) if the Licensee is a company, any failure to provide full and accurate information in response to a notice given by the Oil and Gas Authority to that company under section 5D of the Act of 1998;”;(b) in the closing words, after “(g)” insert “or (j) or (k)”.(3) Omit paragraphs (3) to (5).A37(1) Clause 42A (power of partial revocation) is amended as follows.(2) For paragraph (1) substitute—“(1) This clause applies in a case where two or more persons are the Licensee and—(a) an event mentioned in clause 42(2)(c), (d), (e) or (g) occurs in relation to one of those persons;(b) an event mentioned in clause 42(2)(b) occurs which consists of a breach of clause 41A(2) or (4) in relation to a change in control of one of those persons;(c) an event mentioned in clause 42(2)(j) occurs in relation to a change in control of one of those persons (see clause 41A); or(d) an event mentioned in clause 42(2)(k) occurs which consists of a failure by one of those persons as mentioned in that provision.”(3) In paragraph (2), for “or (b)” substitute “, (b), (c) or (d)”.Part 2 of Schedule 13A38 Part 2 of Schedule 13 (current model clauses for landward appraisal licences deriving from Schedule 5 to the 1991 Regulations) is amended in accordance with paragraphs A39 to A41.A39 After clause 32 insert—“32A Change in control of Licensee(1) This clause applies if—(a) the Licensee is a company, or(b) where two or more persons are the Licensee, any of those persons is a company,and references in this clause to a company are to such a company.(2) A change in control of a company is not permitted without the consent of the Oil and Gas Authority (“the OGA”).(3) There is a “change in control” of a company if a person takes control of the company, not having previously been a person who controlled the company.  (4) If a change in control of a company is contemplated, the company must apply in writing to the OGA for consent at least three months before the date on which it is proposed that the change would occur (if consent were given).(5) The OGA may—(a) consent to the change in control unconditionally,(b) consent to the change in control subject to conditions, or(c) refuse consent to the change in control.(6) If the OGA proposes to grant consent subject to any condition or to refuse consent, the OGA must, before making a final decision—(a) give the company an opportunity to make representations, and(b) consider any representations that are made.(7) The general rule is that the OGA must decide an application within three months of receiving it, but the OGA may delay its decision by notifying the interested parties in writing.(8) Conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b) may be imposed on the person taking control of the company (as well as on the company), and may include—(a) conditions relating to the arrangements for the change in control, including the date by which it must occur,(b) conditions relating to the performance of activities permitted by this licence, and(c) financial conditions.(9) The OGA’s decision on the application, and any conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b), must be notified in writing to the interested parties.(10) In this clause “the interested parties” means—(a) the company,(b) the person who (if consent were granted) would take control of the company, and(c) if the company and another person or persons are the Licensee, that other person or those other persons.(11) For the purposes of this clause, the question of whether a person has control of a company is to be determined in accordance with the test set out in clause 32(3).”A40(1) Clause 33 (power of revocation) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (2)—(a) after sub-paragraph (h) insert—“(i) if the Licensee is a company, any breach of a condition subject to which the Oil and Gas Authority gave its consent to a change in control of the Licensee (see clause 32A);(j) if the Licensee is a company, any failure to provide full and accurate information in response to a notice given by the Oil and Gas Authority to that company under section 5D of the Petroleum Act 1998;”;(b) in the closing words, after “(f)” insert “or (i) or (j)”.(3) Omit paragraphs (3) to (5).A41(1) Clause 33A (power of partial revocation) is amended as follows.(2) For paragraph (1) substitute—“(1) This clause applies in a case where two or more persons are the Licensee and—(a) an event mentioned in clause 33(2)(c), (d), (e) or (f) occurs in relation to one of those persons;(b) an event mentioned in clause 33(2)(b) occurs which consists of a breach of clause 32A(2) or (4) in relation to a change in control of one of those persons;(c) an event mentioned in clause 33(2)(i) occurs in relation to a change in control of one of those persons (see clause 32A); or(d) an event mentioned in clause 33(2)(j) occurs which consists of a failure by one of those persons as mentioned in that provision.”(3) In paragraph (2), for “or (b)” substitute “, (b), (c) or (d)”.  Part 2 of Schedule 14A42 Part 2 of Schedule 14 (current model clauses for landward development licences deriving from Schedule 6 to the 1991 Regulations) is amended in accordance with paragraphs A43 to A45.A43 After clause 34 insert—“34A Change in control of Licensee(1) This clause applies if—(a) the Licensee is a company, or(b) where two or more persons are the Licensee, any of those persons is a company,and references in this clause to a company are to such a company.(2) A change in control of a company is not permitted without the consent of the Oil and Gas Authority (“the OGA”).(3) There is a “change in control” of a company if a person takes control of the company, not having previously been a person who controlled the company.(4) If a change in control of a company is contemplated, the company must apply in writing to the OGA for consent at least three months before the date on which it is proposed that the change would occur (if consent were given).(5) The OGA may—(a) consent to the change in control unconditionally,(b) consent to the change in control subject to conditions, or(c) refuse consent to the change in control.(6) If the OGA proposes to grant consent subject to any condition or to refuse consent, the OGA must, before making a final decision—(a) give the company an opportunity to make representations, and(b) consider any representations that are made.(7) The general rule is that the OGA must decide an application within three months of receiving it, but the OGA may delay its decision by notifying the interested parties in writing.(8) Conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b) may be imposed on the person taking control of the company (as well as on the company), and may include—(a) conditions relating to the arrangements for the change in control, including the date by which it must occur,(b) conditions relating to the performance of activities permitted by this licence, and(c) financial conditions.(9) The OGA’s decision on the application, and any conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b), must be notified in writing to the interested parties.(10) In this clause “the interested parties” means—(a) the company,(b) the person who (if consent were granted) would take control of the company, and(c) if the company and another person or persons are the Licensee, that other person or those other persons.(11) For the purposes of this clause, the question of whether a person has control of a company is to be determined in accordance with the test set out in clause 34(3).”A44(1) Clause 35 (power of revocation) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (2)—(a) after sub-paragraph (i) insert—“(j) if the Licensee is a company, any breach of a condition subject to which the Oil and Gas Authority gave its consent to a change in control of the Licensee (see clause 34A);  (k) if the Licensee is a company, any failure to provide full and accurate information in response to a notice given by the Oil and Gas Authority to that company under section 5D of the Act of 1998;”;(b) in the closing words, after “(g)” insert “or (j) or (k)”.(3) Omit paragraphs (3) to (5).A45(1) Clause 35A (power of partial revocation) is amended as follows.(2) For paragraph (1) substitute—“(1) This clause applies in a case where two or more persons are the Licensee and—(a) an event mentioned in clause 35(2)(c), (d), (e) or (g) occurs in relation to one of those persons;(b) an event mentioned in clause 35(2)(b) occurs which consists of a breach of clause 34A(2) or (4) in relation to a change in control of one of those persons;(c) an event mentioned in clause 35(2)(j) occurs in relation to a change in control of one of those persons (see clause 34A); or(d) an event mentioned in clause 35(2)(k) occurs which consists of a failure by one of those persons as mentioned in that provision.”(3) In paragraph (2), for “or (b)” substitute “, (b), (c) or (d)”.PART A3 PETROLEUM LICENSING (EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION) (SEAWARD AND LANDWARD AREAS) REGULATIONS 2004IntroductionA46 The Petroleum Licensing (Exploration and Production) (Seaward and Landward Areas) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/352) are amended in accordance with this Part of this Schedule.Schedule 2A47 Schedule 2 (model clauses for production licences relating to frontier areas — no break clause) is amended in accordance with paragraphs A48 to A50.A48 After clause 37 insert—“37A Change in control of Licensee(1) This clause applies if—(a) the Licensee is a company, or(b) where two or more persons are the Licensee, any of those persons is a company,and references in this clause to a company are to such a company.(2) A change in control of a company is not permitted without the consent of the Oil and Gas Authority (“the OGA”).(3) There is a “change in control” of a company if a person takes control of the company, not having previously been a person who controlled the company.(4) If a change in control of a company is contemplated, the company must apply in writing to the OGA for consent at least three months before the date on which it is proposed that the change would occur (if consent were given).(5) The OGA may—(a) consent to the change in control unconditionally,(b) consent to the change in control subject to conditions, or(c) refuse consent to the change in control.(6) If the OGA proposes to grant consent subject to any condition or to refuse consent, the OGA must, before making a final decision—(a) give the company an opportunity to make representations, and(b) consider any representations that are made.(7) The general rule is that the OGA must decide an application within three months of receiving it, but the OGA may delay its decision by notifying the interested parties in writing.  (8) Conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b) may be imposed on the person taking control of the company (as well as on the company), and may include—(a) conditions relating to the arrangements for the change in control, including the date by which it must occur,(b) conditions relating to the performance of activities permitted by this licence, and(c) financial conditions.(9) The OGA’s decision on the application, and any conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b), must be notified in writing to the interested parties.(10) In this clause “the interested parties” means—(a) the company,(b) the person who (if consent were granted) would take control of the company, and(c) if the company and another person or persons are the Licensee, that other person or those other persons.(11) For the purposes of this clause, the question of whether a person has control of a company is to be determined in accordance with the test set out in clause 37(4).”A49(1) Clause 38 (power of revocation) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (2)—(a) after sub-paragraph (i) insert—“(j) if the Licensee is a company, any breach of a condition subject to which the Oil and Gas Authority gave its consent to a change in control of the Licensee (see clause 37A);(k) if the Licensee is a company, any failure to provide full and accurate information in response to a notice given by the Oil and Gas Authority to that company under section 5D of the Act;”;(b) in the closing words, after “(g)” insert “or (j) or (k)”.(3) Omit paragraphs (3) to (5).A50(1) Clause 38A (power of partial revocation) is amended as follows.(2) For paragraph (1) substitute—“(1) This clause applies in a case where two or more persons are the Licensee and—(a) an event mentioned in clause 38(2)(c), (d), (e), (ee) or (g) occurs in relation to one of those persons;(b) an event mentioned in clause 38(2)(b) occurs which consists of a breach of clause 37A(2) or (4) in relation to a change in control of one of those persons;(c) an event mentioned in clause 38(2)(j) occurs in relation to a change in control of one of those persons (see clause 37A); or(d) an event mentioned in clause 38(2)(k) occurs which consists of a failure by one of those persons as mentioned in that provision.”(3) In paragraph (2), for “or (b)” substitute “, (b), (c) or (d)”.Schedule 3A51 Schedule 3 (model clauses for production licences relating to frontier areas — including break clause) is amended in accordance with paragraphs A52 to A54.A52 After clause 38 insert—“38A Change in control of Licensee(1) This clause applies if—(a) the Licensee is a company, or(b) where two or more persons are the Licensee, any of those persons is a company,and references in this clause to a company are to such a company.(2) A change in control of a company is not permitted without the consent of the Oil and Gas Authority (“the OGA”).(3) There is a “change in control” of a company if a person takes control of the company, not having previously been a person who controlled the company.  (4) If a change in control of a company is contemplated, the company must apply in writing to the OGA for consent at least three months before the date on which it is proposed that the change would occur (if consent were given).(5) The OGA may—(a) consent to the change in control unconditionally,(b) consent to the change in control subject to conditions, or(c) refuse consent to the change in control.(6) If the OGA proposes to grant consent subject to any condition or to refuse consent, the OGA must, before making a final decision—(a) give the company an opportunity to make representations, and(b) consider any representations that are made.(7) The general rule is that the OGA must decide an application within three months of receiving it, but the OGA may delay its decision by notifying the interested parties in writing.(8) Conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b) may be imposed on the person taking control of the company (as well as on the company), and may include—(a) conditions relating to the arrangements for the change in control, including the date by which it must occur,(b) conditions relating to the performance of activities permitted by this licence, and(c) financial conditions.(9) The OGA’s decision on the application, and any conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b), must be notified in writing to the interested parties.(10) In this clause “the interested parties” means—(a) the company,(b) the person who (if consent were granted) would take control of the company, and(c) if the company and another person or persons are the Licensee, that other person or those other persons.(11) For the purposes of this clause, the question of whether a person has control of a company is to be determined in accordance with the test set out in clause 38(4).”A53(1) Clause 39 (power of revocation) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (2)—(a) after sub-paragraph (i) insert—“(j) if the Licensee is a company, any breach of a condition subject to which the Oil and Gas Authority gave its consent to a change in control of the Licensee (see clause 38A);(k) if the Licensee is a company, any failure to provide full and accurate information in response to a notice given by the Oil and Gas Authority to that company under section 5D of the Act;”;(b) in the closing words, after “(g)” insert “or (j) or (k)”.(3) Omit paragraphs (3) to (5).A54(1) Clause 39A (power of partial revocation) is amended as follows.(2) For paragraph (1) substitute—“(1) This clause applies in a case where two or more persons are the Licensee and—(a) an event mentioned in clause 39(2)(c), (d), (e), (ee) or (g) occurs in relation to one of those persons;(b) an event mentioned in clause 39(2)(b) occurs which consists of a breach of clause 38A(2) or (4) in relation to a change in control of one of those persons;(c) an event mentioned in clause 39(2)(j) occurs in relation to a change in control of one of those persons (see clause 38A); or(d) an event mentioned in clause 39(2)(k) occurs which consists of a failure by one of those persons as mentioned in that provision.”  (3) In paragraph (2), for “or (b)” substitute “, (b), (c) or (d)”.Schedule 4A55 Schedule 4 (model clauses for standard production licences) is amended in accordance with paragraphs A56 to A58.A56 After clause 36 insert—“36A Change in control of Licensee(1) This clause applies if—(a) the Licensee is a company, or(b) where two or more persons are the Licensee, any of those persons is a company,and references in this clause to a company are to such a company.(2) A change in control of a company is not permitted without the consent of the Oil and Gas Authority (“the OGA”).(3) There is a “change in control” of a company if a person takes control of the company, not having previously been a person who controlled the company.(4) If a change in control of a company is contemplated, the company must apply in writing to the OGA for consent at least three months before the date on which it is proposed that the change would occur (if consent were given).(5) The OGA may—(a) consent to the change in control unconditionally,(b) consent to the change in control subject to conditions, or(c) refuse consent to the change in control.(6) If the OGA proposes to grant consent subject to any condition or to refuse consent, the OGA must, before making a final decision—(a) give the company an opportunity to make representations, and(b) consider any representations that are made.(7) The general rule is that the OGA must decide an application within three months of receiving it, but the OGA may delay its decision by notifying the interested parties in writing.(8) Conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b) may be imposed on the person taking control of the company (as well as on the company), and may include—(a) conditions relating to the arrangements for the change in control, including the date by which it must occur,(b) conditions relating to the performance of activities permitted by this licence, and(c) financial conditions.(9) The OGA’s decision on the application, and any conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b), must be notified in writing to the interested parties.(10) In this clause “the interested parties” means—(a) the company,(b) the person who (if consent were granted) would take control of the company, and(c) if the company and another person or persons are the Licensee, that other person or those other persons.(11) For the purposes of this clause, the question of whether a person has control of a company is to be determined in accordance with the test set out in clause 36(4).”A57(1) Clause 37 (power of revocation) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (2)—(a) after sub-paragraph (i) insert—“(j) if the Licensee is a company, any breach of a condition subject to which the Oil and Gas Authority gave its consent to a change in control of the Licensee (see clause 36A);(k) if the Licensee is a company, any failure to provide full and accurate information in response to a notice given by the Oil and Gas Authority to that company under section 5D of the Act;”;(b) in the closing words, after “(g)” insert “or (j) or (k)”.  (3) Omit paragraphs (3) to (5).A58(1) Clause 37A (power of partial revocation) is amended as follows.(2) For paragraph (1) substitute—“(1) This clause applies in a case where two or more persons are the Licensee and—(a) an event mentioned in clause 37(2)(c), (d), (e), (ee) or (g) occurs in relation to one of those persons;(b) an event mentioned in clause 37(2)(b) occurs which consists of a breach of clause 36A(2) or (4) in relation to a change in control of one of those persons;(c) an event mentioned in clause 37(2)(j) occurs in relation to a change in control of one of those persons (see clause 36A); or(d) an event mentioned in clause 37(2)(k) occurs which consists of a failure by one of those persons as mentioned in that provision.”(3) In paragraph (2), for “or (b)” substitute “, (b), (c) or (d)”.Schedule 6A59 Schedule 6 (model clauses for petroleum exploration and development licences) is amended in accordance with paragraphs A60 to A62.A60 After clause 35 insert—“35A Change in control of Licensee(1) This clause applies if—(a) the Licensee is a company, or(b) where two or more persons are the Licensee, any of those persons is a company,and references in this clause to a company are to such a company.(2) A change in control of a company is not permitted without the consent of the Oil and Gas Authority (“the OGA”).(3) There is a “change in control” of a company if a person takes control of the company, not having previously been a person who controlled the company.(4) If a change in control of a company is contemplated, the company must apply in writing to the OGA for consent at least three months before the date on which it is proposed that the change would occur (if consent were given).(5) The OGA may—(a) consent to the change in control unconditionally,(b) consent to the change in control subject to conditions, or(c) refuse consent to the change in control.(6) If the OGA proposes to grant consent subject to any condition or to refuse consent, the OGA must, before making a final decision—(a) give the company an opportunity to make representations, and(b) consider any representations that are made.(7) The general rule is that the OGA must decide an application within three months of receiving it, but the OGA may delay its decision by notifying the interested parties in writing.(8) Conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b) may be imposed on the person taking control of the company (as well as on the company), and may include—(a) conditions relating to the arrangements for the change in control, including the date by which it must occur,(b) conditions relating to the performance of activities permitted by this licence, and(c) financial conditions.(9) The OGA’s decision on the application, and any conditions as mentioned in paragraph (5)(b), must be notified in writing to the interested parties.(10) In this clause “the interested parties” means—(a) the company,  (b) the person who (if consent were granted) would take control of the company, and(c) if the company and another person or persons are the Licensee, that other person or those other persons.(11) For the purposes of this clause, the question of whether a person has control of a company is to be determined in accordance with the test set out in clause 35(4).”A61(1) Clause 36 (power of revocation) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (2)—(a) after sub-paragraph (i) insert—“(j) if the Licensee is a company, any breach of a condition subject to which the Oil and Gas Authority gave itsconsent to a change in control of the Licensee (see clause 35A);(k) if the Licensee is a company, any failure to provide full and accurate information in response to a notice given by the Oil and Gas Authority to that company under section 5D of the Act;”;(b) in the closing words, after “(g)” insert “or (j) or (k)”.(3) Omit paragraphs (3) to (5).A62(1) Clause 36A (power of partial revocation) is amended as follows.(2) For paragraph (1) substitute—“(1) This clause applies in a case where two or more persons are the Licensee and—(a) an event mentioned in clause 36(2)(c), (d), (e), (ee) or (g) occurs in relation to one of those persons;(b) an event mentioned in clause 36(2)(b) occurs which consists of a breach of clause 35A(2) or (4) in relation to a change in control of one of those persons;(c) an event mentioned in clause 36(2)(j) occurs in relation to a change in control of one of those persons (see clause 35A); or(d) an event mentioned in clause 36(2)(k) occurs which consists of a failure by one of those persons as mentioned in that provision.”(3) In paragraph (2), for “or (b)” substitute “, (b), (c) or (d)”.”
329: Schedule 20, page 374, line 9, leave out sub-paragraph (4)
330: Schedule 20, page 375, line 7, leave out “, (3BA), (3BB), (3BC), (3BD) or (3BE)” and insert “or, in a case where the relevant reciprocating territory is also a CSC territory (as defined by section 16AA), (3BB)”
331: Schedule 20, page 377, line 4, at end insert—“(c) a country mentioned in section 26(1B)(b),(d) an overseas territory mentioned in section 26(1B)(c) or (d), or(e) a relevant reciprocating territory.”
332: Schedule 20, page 378, line 11, at end insert “(as amended or supplemented from time to time)”
333: Schedule 20, page 379, line 13, leave out “In section 26 of the 1965 Act (interpretation),” and insert—“(1) Section 26 of the 1965 Act (interpretation) is amended as follows.(2) +”
334: Schedule 20, page 379, line 27, at end insert—“(e) after the definition of “overseas territory” insert—““the Paris Convention” means the Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy of 29 July 1960, as amended by the Additional Protocol of 28 January 1964, by the Protocol of 16 November 1982 and by the Protocol of 12 February 2004;”.”
335: Schedule 20, page 379, line 27, at end insert—“( ) In subsection (1A)(a)—(a) in the opening words, for “a relevant international agreement” substitute “the Paris Convention”;  (b) in sub-paragraph (i)—(i) for “relevant international agreement” (in each place it appears) substitute “Convention”;(ii) for “agreement” (in the third place it appears) substitute “Convention”;(iii) for “agreement’s” substitute “Convention’s”;(c) in sub-paragraph (ii), for “relevant international agreement” substitute “Convention”.”
336: Title, line 3, leave out “industrial”
337: Title, line 4, after “production” insert “and transportation”
338: Title, line 7, after “codes;” insert “about financial support for persons carrying on energy-intensive activities;”
Motion on Amendments 275 to 338 agreed.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
 - Commons Reason

Scottish Legislative Consent withheld, Northern Ireland Legislative Consent sought.

Motion A

Lord Caine: Moved by Lord Caine
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 44D, 44E, 44F, 44G, 44H and 44J, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 44K.
44K: Giving family members a role in whether immunity should be granted or not would critically undermine the effectiveness of delivering on the principal aim of this legislation.

Lord Caine: My Lords, last week your Lordships sent this legislation back to the other place after agreeing an opposition amendment with a majority of 11 votes. This was overturned the following day by the elected House by a majority of 83. It followed the rejection of an earlier amendment passed by this House with a majority of 92. I fully accept that this House has exercised its legitimate constitutional role by asking the other place to reconsider. It has done so and very decisively answered on both occasions with overwhelming majorities. I therefore respectfully hope that your Lordships now agree to this Bill being passed, over one year and two months since I introduced it.
The legacy Bill introduced to the other place at the start of the Session last year took on a very different form to the Bill before us today. The changes brought about by the Government and extensively influenced by your Lordships over the course of the Bill’s passage mean that the Bill that I hope will receive Royal Assent is a more robust piece of legislation, designed to deliver better outcomes for victims and survivors of the Troubles. The current mechanisms for addressing legacy matters work for only a very small number of people rather than the overwhelming majority and where established criminal justice processes are increasingly unlikely to deliver the outcomes that people desire, particularly in respect of prosecutions. This legislation will provide more information to more people in a shorter timeframe than is possible under current mechanisms.
Should this Bill become law, which I hope it will, it is for the commission that it establishes to build on the framework that the legislation provides by developing, independently of the UK Government, clear structures, guidance and protocols regarding how it will work in practice. However, the new commission will need time to do this. While I recognise that this has been a difficult process, I encourage everybody to give Sir Declan Morgan KC and his team a fair wind, to demonstrate that the commission can deliver effectively for families. The UK Government will provide whatever support that they can in this endeavour while of course respecting the operational independence of the commission, which has been significantly strengthened by your Lordships’ House. I hope that others can do the same. I beg to move.

Lord Murphy of Torfaen: It has been a long time—well over a year, as the Minister said—and I continue to say that I do not blame the Government for one second for trying to resolve what is a hugely difficult issue. Of course they were right to do so, but they do not have the answer.
My right honourable friend the new shadow Secretary for Northern Ireland, Hilary Benn—I welcome him to his post and, incidentally, pay tribute to Peter Kyle, who did a great job over a couple of years—said in the Commons last week, quite rightly, that the Government have made changes that all of us welcome, including this House, but it simply is not enough.
The Minister mentioned the Divisions we have had in the last few weeks. Twice, this House—the majorities might not have been huge, but they were majorities nevertheless—has asked the House of Commons to look again at the central controversial issue of the Bill, which is conditional immunity. He is right, of course, that ultimately we have to give way to the elected House, but that does not alter the fact that this is a friendless Bill. In effect, it has no support in Northern Ireland at all. All my experience of Northern Ireland over the years is that, where there is no support for a Bill such as this, from all communities in Northern Ireland, it will not work. There should have been consensus.
The Government should put the Bill on hold—put it on ice, if you like. Wait until there is a restored Assembly and Executive. When we debate other issues affecting Northern Ireland on Thursday, we will perhaps hear that there has been progress on the possibility of restoration. The right place for this to be debated and discussed is Belfast, not London, so put it on hold. If that does not happen, a future Labour Government will undoubtedly repeal this legislation.

Lord Bruce of Bennachie: My Lords, I concur with the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. I question the Minister on the wording of the Commons reason, which is very short:
“Giving family members a role in whether immunity should be granted or not would critically undermine the effectiveness of delivering on the principal aim of this legislation”.
Could the Minister explain what the principal aim of this legislation is? Many of us feel that the motivation underlying it is one of the reasons why it has attracted  total opposition from all sections of the population and all the political parties in Northern Ireland.
This House was trying to ensure that families and victims have more say in the process. I absolutely concur with the Minister that he has extended his offices, to a very generous degree, with a desire to try to engage people. It is true that the Bill has been substantially improved from what it set out to be, but it does not satisfy anybody any more than it did at the beginning. Serious questions remain as to whether it accords with international human rights. We know that the Government believe it does, but others disagree. Sir Declan himself has said that he would welcome legal challenges. I referred to that the other day, as there is still a concern that the Bill may become an Act and then be subject to legislation or court action that could undermine its effectiveness.
That said, at this stage, we have exercised the debate and stated our view. The Commons has decided to persist and, in these circumstances, we are bound to accept its view.

Lord Weir of Ballyholme: My Lords, it is very difficult to achieve unanimity in politics in Northern Ireland, yet the Government inadvertently seem to have achieved that through this legislation, in that all political parties, Churches and, as far as I am aware, victims groups in Northern Ireland are opposed to it. We may question the motivation behind some of that opposition, and with good measure, in particular that coming from Sinn Féin, which in its past was the victim maker. For particular selfish reasons, it has a jaundiced view of this and is opposed to it through false motivation. Nevertheless, there is a strong consensus in Northern Ireland that this is the wrong way to go.
The Bill remains fundamentally rotten. There was a good attempt, by the Opposition which put forward this amendment, at least to flag up the role of victims and give them some direct say. As was said in the previous debate, that, in and of itself, would not have made a bad Bill good, but it would at least have been a step in the right direction.
Unfortunately, we are now left with the situation that, despite the voices from all sides of this Chamber, yet again our amendment has been rejected by the House of Commons. It is deeply disappointing that both the Government and a majority of MPs have not listened to what has been said. We are therefore about to pass legislation that, whatever slight improvements have been made to it, fundamentally lets down victims and creates a situation in which justice is corrupted. The reason given for the rejection of this amendment—that it would in some way taint the process and prevent a successful outcome—is a false promise, because we all know that the paramilitary organisations will not simply give up the information. So we are doing all this for no material gain whatever for the victims.
This is a deeply dark day for democracy and for this House. Clearly, we are left with a situation where the Commons remains unconvinced. If the Opposition do not push this to a Division, we will be left with a fait accompli which we will all come to regret.

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Weir. Noble Lords have been consistent across the House in their opposition to the contents of this Bill, which I believe are deeply iniquitous. For me, they represent a denial of basic human rights—access to justice and truth, the very things that victims and survivors have yearned for over many years.
I am deeply disappointed that the Commons, on a majority vote, rejected our reasonable amendment, which was supported across this House last week. None the less, I do not think that the issue will be resolved by this Bill. I believe that Sir Declan and his commissioners will meet many legal challenges; in fact, he invited them in his Irish News interview on Monday 28 August, which suggests that he might have doubts about this process.
Notwithstanding that, this House has stood solidly and steadfastly with the victims and survivors. I was disappointed again when I heard the Secretary of State in an interview a few days ago, as he did not seem to reflect on, think about, empathise with or sympathise with the views of victims. He simply dismissed them. This was another denial of their right to justice and human rights. Always remember that victims of the Troubles have suffered immeasurably in many ways, whether physically or mentally, over a long period, through the loss of loved ones.
So, we still disagree with this Bill. I am pleased that my honourable friend the Shadow Secretary of State has indicated that a future Labour Government will repeal the Act. I look forward to that day, because I know where I stand: it is with the victims and survivors, right across the board.

Baroness O'Loan: My Lords, I rise to speak in opposition to the Government’s removal of the opportunity for family members of those who died in the Troubles to play a role in the decision as to whether immunity should be granted under the Bill. Accepting your Lordships’ amendment would have given victims the opportunity, at least, to have a role in the decision as to whether to grant murderers immunity for the murder of their loved one.
Today is a terrible day for the people of the United Kingdom and for the rule of law in the United Kingdom. It is a day of shame. It is the day on which Parliament is legislating to remove from people across the UK who were victims of the Troubles access, in accordance with the rule of law and our international legal obligations, to criminal prosecutions, civil actions for damages for loss and injury caused, and to inquests. Moreover, His Majesty’s Government are forcing through not only these restrictions but their immunity clause, despite the fact that, as the Secretary of State said most recently,
“There are no guarantees that the Bill will bring information forward”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/9/23; col. 439.]
at all.
How do your Lordships think the people of Northern Ireland and the other victims of the Troubles across Great Britain felt on hearing those words? At least the current system had been gradually providing verifiable and accurate information for victims, despite the best  efforts of those who sought to limit access to information. The Secretary of State said yesterday that, despite the widespread opposition to the legacy Bill from politicians and victims, he has not been presented with an alternative option. This is untrue. The Government have been presented with alternatives during the passage of the Bill which included a fully empowered independent commission that would have investigated in compliance with all our legal obligations. Those alternatives have all been rejected by the Government, who have used their parliamentary majority to force through this iniquitous Bill against the wishes of every political party, community group, victims’ group, human rights organisation, et cetera. Nobody in Northern Ireland and nobody among the GB victims’ groups wants this law.
On this day, His Majesty’s Government are using their parliamentary majority to force through a Bill that is already subject to challenge in the courts. There is now tremendous pressure on the party in opposition to live up to its commitment to repeal the Bill if it wins the next election. Even more, there is huge international pressure on the Irish Government to institute legal proceedings in the European Court of Human Rights in respect of the UK’s failure to comply with its legal obligations under the treaty. I very much hope that they will bring those proceedings.
A country which does not respect the rule of law and its international legal obligations loses its legitimacy in the wider world. In passing this Bill, the United Kingdom is not, as His Majesty’s Government have claimed, seeking to provide truth and reconciliation for the people of Northern Ireland and for all the victims of the Troubles across the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked a very pertinent question, and I hope the Minister will reply to it. The effect of this Bill is to restrict access to legal remedies, which are enjoyed by everybody else in the United Kingdom, for that small and unfortunate group of victims, several thousand in number, who suffered so terribly during the Troubles. I cannot support this amendment.

Lord Eames: My Lords, in my years of service to this House I cannot think of an occasion when sadness, disillusionment and indeed anger pressed upon me to the extent they do today. Over the months we have worked to try to improve this Bill, I have listened to many highly technical speeches based on great parliamentary experience. But to that I have to add one other element today which it has been my sad duty to bring to the attention of this House over that period.
It is to tell noble Lords that the word “victimhood” has become so used that we have lost sight of what or who a victim is. A victim exists with a picture on the mantelpiece. A victim exists with frequent visits to a hospital for treatment. A victim exists in the grandmother trying to explain to grandchildren what happened to members of that family. A victim is one who believed at one stage that the mother of Parliaments would understand their dilemma.
I have paid tribute on several occasions to the Minister for his patience in dealing with this issue, but I have to say this afternoon that he has not gone far enough. The feeling of sadness which overwhelms me  is based on my many years of service to victims—to the men, women and children who were the real sufferers of our Troubles. I cannot get them out of my mind at this moment: the funerals, the addresses at funerals, the comfort in the hospital ward or beside a bedside. That is the whole background: the human side of “victim”. The human side is an ageing population who have been through the Troubles, and who now, by the passage of time, have looked with some hope to what we were going to pass in Parliament.
Way back, all those years ago, when Denis Bradley and I were asked to make the first attempt at dealing with the combined reconciliation and legacy issue, we set out on a journey which ends at this moment, in your Lordships’ House, so my feelings run very deep. Irrespective of the Opposition’s assurance that they will repeal this legislation one day if they are in power, and irrespective of the politics of it all, I speak of the broken hearts, the broken bodies and the irreconcilable issues that face ordinary decent people. I think of the members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Ulster Defence Regiment, the civilians, caught up in this. I think of the work in hospital wards by dedicated doctors and nurses, and I can still hear in my mind the drumbeat of the procession to the grave. I say to the Government: surely, they have brought us not to a crossroads but to the edge of a cliff, and Northern Ireland is tottering at the edge.

Lord Caine: My Lords, I am grateful, as always, to those who have spoken. I do not intend to follow the current fashion for making yet another Second Reading speech at this stage of the legislation’s proceedings. I will just pick up one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, when he referred to the role of the Northern Ireland Assembly in all this. He will recall that it was the Northern Ireland Executive, back in 2013, that invited Richard Haass and Meghan O’Sullivan in to try to deal with issues related to past flag parading. Of course, no consensus was forthcoming on that occasion. As I have reminded the House on so many occasions, the reason we ended up dealing with these issues as the UK Government and in Westminster is that after the Stormont House agreement, it was the then First Minister and Deputy First Minister who came to the Secretary of State and said that it was far too difficult for them to do in Stormont and asked us to do it in Westminster.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, asked me about the motivation for the legislation and what it is designed to achieve. I touched on this last week and in my comments in moving this Motion. It is primarily to get more information to victims and survivors of the Troubles about what happened to their loved ones, in a far shorter timeframe than we feel is possible under the current legacy mechanisms. It is about information recovery, where people want to access that information. That is the motivation behind the legislation. It is now incumbent on us to pass the Bill and give Sir Declan Morgan and his team the opportunity to make this a reality and to deliver for victims and survivors of the Troubles.
Motion A agreed.

G20 Summit
 - Statement

Lord True: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, the whole House will join me in sending our sympathies to the people of Morocco following the devastating earthquake. Our thoughts are with those who have lost loved ones, the injured and those bravely engaged in rescue efforts. We also remember the victims and loved ones of the terrorist attacks that took place in the United States 22 years ago today, including many British citizens.
I have just returned from the G20 summit in India. At the summit I had three aims: first, to increase diplomatic pressure on Russia and call out its shameful disruption of global food supplies in the Black Sea; secondly, to show the world that democracies such as the United Kingdom, not authoritarian regimes, are leading the fight on global challenges such as development and climate change; and thirdly, to strengthen ties and forge new partnerships to deliver jobs, growth and security for the British people.
The world faces a moment of danger, volatility and increasingly rapid change, but even as most G20 leaders came together in Delhi in a spirit of co-operation, one did not. For two years now, Putin has lacked the courage to face his G20 peers. Day after day, his actions cause horrendous suffering in Ukraine, violating the United Nations charter, threatening European security and disrupting global energy and food supplies. The spillovers have driven up prices here at home and are hurting people all around the world. Russia’s withdrawal from the Black Sea grain initiative exposes its willingness to spread that suffering further. While Putin stalls, making unmeetable demands, he is destroying Ukraine’s ports and grain silos. In just one month, Russia has destroyed over 270,000 tonnes of grain—enough to feed 1 million people for a year. I can tell the House today that, thanks to declassified intelligence, we know that on 24 August the Russian military targeted a civilian cargo ship in the Black Sea with multiple missiles, demonstrating just how desperate Putin is.
At the G20, leaders united in calling out the ‘human suffering’ caused by Putin’s war. Ukraine has the right to export its goods through international waters, and it has the moral right to ship grain that is helping to feed the world. The UK is working with partners to get grain to those who need it most. We will provide £3 million for the World Food Programme, building on earlier contributions to President Zelensky’s ‘Grain from Ukraine’ initiative. We are using our intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities to monitor Russian activity in the Black Sea, so that we can call it out if we see that Russia is preparing further attacks on civilian shipping or infrastructure, and so that we can attribute attacks should they happen. Later this year, we are hosting a UK global food security summit to put in place solutions for the long term.
I spoke to my friend President Zelensky just before the summit. Backed by our support, Ukraine’s counteroffensive is making hard-won progress. We will continue to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes, until we see a ‘just and durable peace’ that respects its sovereignty and territorial integrity. That is the only possible outcome to Putin’s illegal war, and Ukraine, with our support, will prevail.
On my second aim, we showed at the G20 that it is the UK and our partners, not authoritarian actors, that offer the best solution to the global challenges we face. We are playing our part to stabilise the global economy, control inflation and fuel future growth. The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show the UK is leading the way, growing faster out of the pandemic than any other major European economy, and demolishing the false narratives we have heard from the other side of this House. We are also leading the way on development assistance. Instead of loading countries with debt, we are calling for fundamental reforms of the World Bank. When I met the World Bank president, I underlined the UK’s desire to see the bank become more efficient and responsible, sweating its balance sheet to deliver more support where it is needed.
We are also leading calls at the G20 to safely harness new technologies to support growth and development, and we are leading action to tackle climate change. While some in Westminster denigrate the UK’s record on climate issues, out there in the world we are rightly seen as a global leader. We have cut emissions faster than any other G7 country, with low-carbon sources now providing over half our electricity. We are providing billions for the global energy transition, including through our pioneering just energy transition partnerships. And at the G20 I made a record commitment of over £1.6 billion for the green climate fund—the single biggest international climate pledge that the UK has ever made.
Finally, my most important aim in Delhi was to deliver on the priorities of the British people. In a changing world, we are using our Brexit freedoms to build new relationships with economies around the world. Since I became Prime Minister, we have joined the CPTPP—the most dynamic trading bloc in the world. We have launched new partnerships with Canada, Australia, Japan and the US, covering trade and economic security. We have secured agreements with France, Albania, Turkey and others to stop illegal migration. At the G20, I went further. We signed a new strategic partnership with Singapore to boost growth, jobs and security. I held warm and productive discussions with Prime Minister Modi on strengthening our relationship in defence, technology and a free trade deal between our nations.
I also met Premier Li of China. The whole House is rightly appalled about reports of espionage in this building. The sanctity of this place must be protected, and the right of Members to speak their minds without fear or sanction must be maintained. We will defend our democracy and our security, so I was emphatic with Premier Li that actions that seek to undermine British democracy are completely unacceptable and will never be tolerated. I also emphasised the UK’s unyielding commitment to human rights, and I was  clear on the importance of maintaining stability and international law as the basis for stable relations. China is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, the world’s second-largest economy and the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide. It has growing influence on others, notably Russia. One of my messages to Premier Li was that China should use its influence to call on Russia to end its aggression against Ukraine. The G20 showed a common purpose on food security, and we need to see that in other areas.
This Government have acted decisively to improve our security, blocking China’s involvement in critical areas such as civil nuclear power, semiconductors and 5G. I pay tribute to the tireless work of our security services. We will shortly set out our response to the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on China. In November last year, the Government set up a new Defending Democracy Taskforce. Its mission is to reduce the risk to the UK’s democratic processes, institutions and society, and to ensure they are secure and resilient to threats of foreign interference. The importance of that work is clear for all to see. Crucially, in taking that approach, we are aligned with each and every one of our Five Eyes allies and with every G7 partner. By speaking frankly and directly, we will ensure our messages are heard clearly and that our interests and values are protected and promoted.
At a time of rapid change, we are bringing British values and British leadership to bear on the biggest global challenges. As one of the fastest-growing major economies, the second-largest contributor to NATO and a global leader in everything from climate to tech to development, I am proud of the UK’s leadership. It is through that leadership, working with our allies and partners, that we will increase our security, grow our economy and deliver on the priorities of the British people. I commend this Statement to the House”.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement. It helps the House when Statements are repeated; I am grateful to him for doing so.
As the G20 got under way, the scale of the devastation caused by the earthquake in Morocco was becoming evident. Today, the death toll continues to rise towards 3,000, with almost as many reported injuries. I entirely concur with the noble Lord’s comments, and our thoughts and condolences are with those affected and those aiding the rescue efforts. Alongside other nations, UK specialist search and rescue teams are working with the Moroccan authorities in a race against time to try to find and treat survivors. We know that a number of UK citizens have been affected. I do not know whether the noble Lord can comment on this, but it would be helpful if he could say something about the efforts being made to ensure that UK citizens can return home at the earliest opportunity.
As the Lord Privy Seal said, this is the week in which we should remember the victims of the 2001 9/11 attacks and those who risked their lives trying to rescue others. It is a further reminder that we must always strive to make our country and communities safer and more resilient. As we look to secure future  security, we recognise that, for some, their lives will never be the same. With the ongoing war in Ukraine as a backdrop to the G20 in New Delhi, there can be no greater reminder of the need for nations to stand together against terrorism and aggression, and to support countries dealing with major disasters.
This year’s G20 was a real opportunity to secure progress on international issues. With the Government and the Opposition consistently united against Putin’s unjust invasion—the noble Lord has made that comment himself—and seeking international co-operation to help Ukraine, I think we all would have hoped for an unequivocal statement from the G20. The Lord Privy Seal may not wish to comment on that, but I suspect he would concur that that is also what he would have sought. It would have been a hugely significant expression of support if the international community had agreed to work towards an agreement about repurposing Russia’s frozen assets to help reconstruct Ukraine. The fact that it was not an unequivocal statement of support means that, whatever its other merits, the communiqué is a disappointment.
We generally welcome and encourage the Prime Minister’s comments on global food supplies in the Black Sea and his personal condemnation against Putin. The Lord Privy Seal will know that the need for further action is urgent. Can he say anything more or give an update on preparations for the November summit on food security? Does he have some detail on whether, and what, progress was made in this regard in Delhi?
The inclusion of the African Union in the G20 reflects Africa’s progress as the world’s fastest-growing continent. We should also support the increasing role of Africa on the world stage. Does the noble Lord consider that the inclusion of the African Union might represent a step towards a greater role for African states in, for example, the UN?
The important announcement of a new partnership for global infrastructure and investment represents an exciting prospect for the world to have an alternative to China’s intercontinental belt and road initiative, but that partnership will not involve the UK. I have a number of questions on this that I hope the noble Lord can clarify. Did we decline the opportunity to sign up, or was it never on offer—were we not offered the opportunity to do so? Will there be opportunities for the UK to play a role in these arrangements in the future? How does it fit in with Ministers’ ongoing rhetoric on global Britain when we are not part of such an exciting and crucial partnership?
I will also ask the noble Lord about the trade deal between the UK and India. The Chancellor has referred to the “real political momentum”, but there does not appear to be any tangible evidence of that following the summit. Can the noble Lord shed some light on the reasons for Mr Hunt’s optimism? This is a key government promise, yet deadlines have been and gone. There does not appear to be any progress, but he might be able to enlighten me: can he identify and outline the genuine progress, or is it still wishful thinking at this stage?
So, there is no UK-India trade deal and we are being left out of the new infrastructure and investment. Those are worrying indicators for the UK. Can the  noble Lord say something about what our strategic plans are for the future of the UK and our place in the world?
The US has the Inflation Reduction Act and the EU is relaxing the rules to allow for greater green subsidies. The Government may disagree with those policies, but their promises of increased global trade and this wonderful new land of increased investment post Brexit are just not being met. Whatever disagreements we have on foreign and domestic policy, we do agree on the UK’s potential. With our expertise and creativity, we should be able to attract investment and trade, but it has to be as part of an international, outward-looking strategy for the economic, environmental and foreign policy challenges of the future. I have no doubt that we can meet those challenges, but if this Government are to do so we need to see a better, confident and credible plan.

Lord Newby: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement and taking questions on it. From these Benches, we also send our sympathies to the people of Morocco in the aftermath of the earthquake. The UK is already sending search and rescue teams, but do the Government have any plans to contribute financially to the reconstruction effort which is now under way and which is going to be long and arduous?
On the outcome of the G20, I probably should not admit it, but I have some sympathy with the Prime Minister. There are deep and unbridgeable rifts between G20 members on a range of issues, most notably Ukraine, and it would be unrealistic to expect harmony to have broken out on all these in Delhi. It seems to me that criticism of the Prime Minister on this ground is pretty naive. As is so often the case with this kind of summit, the value appears to lie principally in the discussions which were able to take place outside the full sessions, so I believe it had considerable value despite the inability to make progress on some of the big issues.
On Ukraine, we applaud the Government’s attempts to get more grain out of the country. The Prime Minister discussed this issue at length in the Statement and said:
“The UK is working with partners to get grain to those who need it most”.
Will the noble Lord explain what tangible support the UK is giving or planning to give to increase the volume of these much-needed grain shipments?
The Prime Minister held a much-heralded meeting with President Modi, principally to advance a trade deal between our countries, but as the noble Baroness said, the Statement is extremely coy about any progress made. There was much speculation in the run-up to Delhi that a deal would be struck before Christmas. Can the noble Lord give the House an assessment of how realistic he believes such a timescale to be?
One of the principal announcements around the summit, as the noble Baroness mentioned, was the signing of a new partnership for global infrastructure and investment. The UK was not a signatory to this agreement despite having been involved in its inception. Can the noble Lord tell the House why not? It has the  potential to be a significant counterweight to China’s belt and road strategy and is therefore of direct relevance to our trade and security. Will the UK make any financial contributions to the initiative or take part in discussions with the other partners on its future?
The Prime Minister gave a detailed account of his discussions with his Chinese counterpart, but the words “Hong Kong” do not appear in the Statement. At present, the Hong Kong authorities, with Beijing’s backing, are actively offering bounties against pro- democracy Hong Kongers now in the UK. The United States has sanctioned those responsible for the crackdown in Hong Kong, but this Government have surprisingly failed to sanction a single person. Will the Government now specifically condemn what would, in effect, be kidnapping and commit to protecting Hong Kongers in the UK? Will they use sanctions, like the Americans, against those responsible for dismantling Hong Kong’s democracy?
The principal aims which the Prime Minister set in attending the G20 were: maintaining pressure on Russia; showing that the UK is leading the fight on global challenges such as climate change; and strengthening international ties. Those are admirable but need to be pursued consistently, so it is a surprise to see that the Prime Minister has decided not to attend the UN General Assembly later this month. This is the largest international summit and an annual opportunity to promote our values and our policy priorities. Can the noble Lord explain why the Prime Minister has decided not to go to New York, and could he suggest to him that it is not too late for him to change his mind?

Lord True: My Lords, I am grateful for those responses, and I will try to pick up at least some of the points made. Anything I do not, I will try to pick up later. First, I am grateful for and share the sentiments that noble Baroness and the noble Lord expressed about the catastrophe in Morocco. I lived through an earthquake of 6.5 on the Richter scale and saw the damage it did to property, lives and communities. The degree of devastation and force that one experiences is unimaginable. At 6.8, this earthquake was twice as strong as the Italian earthquake to which I refer. One can only begin to imagine the horror and the scale of what needs to be done. Our thoughts and prayers remain with everyone who was affected, as the whole House has said. We are supporting our Moroccan friends, as was acknowledged in the House. We have deployed emergency response teams to Morocco to assist with rescue efforts. They are in Marrakesh. They have started search and rescue efforts. We also are deploying a medical assessment team to assist in the work. As for helping British nationals, this is an important issue. The Foreign Office has already received a small number of requests for assistance from British nationals in Morocco. We stand ready to assist British nationals, and consular support is available 24 hours a day, every day.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord asked whether the communique could have said more about the atrocious activities of Russia. One would always wish that one might say more about those matters. The reality is that this was a G20 summit. In fact, one of the extraordinary and notable things about it was that  in some paragraphs of the communique India and, indeed, China—I think for the first time in such a community—assented to a call for a just peace based on territorial integrity for Ukraine. If you look at the text, you will see that implicitly China and India committed to support a just and lasting peace. That is an important matter. These are delicate diplomatic issues. Every nation has its own perception of the world, but the G20 was able to come forward together with that very important statement.
On Ukraine, obviously much of that was covered in the initial Statement. We continue our full degree of support. I was asked about the use of frozen Russian assets for the purposes of reconstruction. We are committed to exploring all legal routes for using frozen Russian assets for reconstruction in Ukraine. We laid legislation in June to enable us to keep sanctions in place until Russia pays compensation. In fact, that delivers on the commitment the G7 made earlier this year that sovereign assets will remain immobilised until Russia pays for damage it has caused to Ukraine.
I welcome what the noble Lord and the noble Baroness said about global food security. This was a very important step forward at the conference, particularly against the background of the Russian attacks on grain. I was asked what the further steps would be. On 20 November, the UK will host a global food security summit towards zero hunger and ending malnutrition. This will work on bringing leadership internationally and strengthening key science, technology, finance and climate partnerships to prevent famine, wider food insecurity and malnutrition. It will be an important moment for this country but, much more importantly, for international co-operation. I am sure that noble Lords will welcome that.
I was asked about the African Union. We are delighted that there was agreement to African Union membership of the G20. As global leaders, frankly, we need to ensure the focus of the international system and the benefits of development, trade and prosperity are more equitably shared than is the case today, and the presence of the African Union should help us to achieve both and so—I say to the noble Lord, Lord Newby—would African representation on the UN Security Council. These are issues on which we reflect.
As far as the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment is concerned, noble Lords should remember that this initiative was launched during our own G7 presidency in 2021. It is something that the UK is much committed to. We have announced a series of flagship projects working with G7 and other partners to deliver responsible development. This is an interlocking set of initiatives. As regards this particular initiative, which was agreed at the G20, Japan did not sign it, for example, and neither did Italy. It is an agreement relating to a particular set of nations and fits in to a wider framework of the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment. Under our British investment partnership approach with India, we have invested more than £2.3 billion to support 600 enterprises employing about half a million people.
I was asked by both parties about the relationship with India. We are not setting a date on any specific target. The talks that took place involving the Foreign  Secretary, the Prime Minister and their counterparts were extremely positive and constructive. We will continue to negotiate with India to secure a comprehensive and ambitious trade deal. Round 12 of negotiations concluded on 31 August. Meetings took place. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade met with India’s Ministers for commerce and finance, and they discussed how to make further meaningful progress on the admittedly complex next phase focused on goods, services and investment. Our Prime Minister and Prime Minister Modi reaffirmed their joint commitment to securing an ambitious deal that helps us to unlock greater opportunities for trade. We must get the right deal; the answer is to get that, not a deal by a specific target date. The discussions were constructive and helpful.
I totally agree with what the noble Lord said about Hong Kong. We discussed that briefly yesterday. I can assure him and other noble Lords that we will take the most vigorous action against anyone involved in threatening or undermining the security of those good people from Hong Kong: refugees from the tyranny of the Chinese Communist Party whom we have all united in welcoming to this country. We will support them, both nationally and internationally.
On the grain initiative, which I was asked about, that is obviously important. We welcome the efforts of Turkey and the UN to try to get this matter moving again. We call on Russia to return to the Black Sea grain initiative. That was in the communiqué. Russia must engage seriously with Turkey and the UN and we are engaging with both to support diplomatic efforts. As I said in the Statement, Ukraine has the right to export its grain.
Let us not forget that the UK’s total military, humanitarian and economic support for Ukraine now amounts to £9.3 billion. I can assure the House that, both in seeking to open the grain routes and in other areas, we will continue that support, on which this House is resolutely united. I am grateful to both parties for that.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I welcome the Statement and I am grateful to my noble friend for repeating it. Obviously, I associate myself with the sympathies expressed over the horrific earthquake in the Atlas mountains and the need to rally round and support Morocco, which will be an increasingly important country for our own relationships in the coming decades.
I would have liked to hear a slightly tougher line come out on Ukraine, as I think we all would. Clearly, more persuasion is required to establish that we are not talking just about ideology, West and East and all those out-of-date concepts. We are talking about a direct, criminal assault on humanity and the stable world order. The sooner that message is established everywhere, regardless of trade or past connections, the better for bringing Russia to book.
One omission did surprise me; in fact, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, mentioned it and my noble friend also made some comments. It is on the accession of the African Union—all 55 countries—to the G20. This is an enormous change. If they all turn up, it will completely swamp the G20; even if just their secretariat  and leadership turn up, this really does remind us of the change in the world balance of power, prosperity and development in the future.
Africa is heading for a population of 1 billion within this century. What is happening in Africa and India makes them increasingly the pivots and central points in the balance of world development, and between the attempted hegemonies of China to overthrow the world order of the last 50 years and the kind of balance we would like to see here in Britain, which is one of independence for more and more countries as they face the problems of the future.
It is also worth remembering that 21 of those 55 countries are members of the Commonwealth. As I said, I am quite surprised that more was not made of this in the Statement itself. I do not know whether my noble friend the Minister would like to comment a little further, but this is where our interests will be increasingly focused and where the new priorities in our foreign policy need to be sharpened up; so, I would welcome perhaps a little more on how the African Union fits into this completely changed world scene, but I thank the Minister all the same for making the Statement.

Lord True: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend, whose expertise and dedication to these issues we all recognise. I fear that it is a few years, perhaps decades, since I had a hand in the drafting of prime ministerial Statements, so I cannot comment on the selection of material, but I can certainly say that the Government and the Prime Minister, all of us, do support and welcome this. It is something that was negotiated with the positive support and promotion—with other nations—of the United Kingdom.
It is absolutely vital that we make progress with relations and support for Africa. The UK is one of the largest supporters of the World Food Programme. We provided over £330 million of funding in 2022, including to Africa. Trade should also be a force for good. In Africa it is a remarkable and welcome thing that 98% of goods imported to the UK from Africa will enter tariff-free. These are things we must continue. We have £3.4 billion of green investments in Kenya, for example. I can certainly undertake to the noble Lord that the Government are very much seized of the importance of that great continent—the continent of the future.
As far as Russia is concerned, I did allude to the difficulties of agreeing. For 20 nations to agree words is often a diplomatic task, but it is fundamental—a point that I made in my initial response—that all G20 members, including actually Russia, committed in the declaration to a
“comprehensive, just, and durable peace in Ukraine that will uphold all the Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter”.
That is something that President Zelensky asked for last year at the Bali summit, and something that we will advance. If you think about it, Lavrov was there—Russia was at the G20 and under the terms of the declaration Russia has told the leaders of the biggest global economies that it will uphold all the principles of the UN Charter and refrain from the use of force  for territorial acquisition. Unless Putin withdraws his troops, he will have lied to the world—perhaps not for the first time.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, we are all grateful to the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. In the Statement, the Prime Minister said that
“we are leading action to tackle climate change”.
Could the Leader tell us then why, it seems, the UK was not invited to the initiative taken by the UN Secretary-General to have a summit of world leaders on climate ambition? Also, he did not respond to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, about why the Prime Minister is not attending the General Assembly. Is that the reason why the Prime Minister is not going?

Lord True: Well, my Lords, there were so many hypotheticals there. I am no more informed about the Prime Minister’s diary than the noble Lord is. On climate change, there is no doubt that the UK is seen, rightly, as a leader. I repeated some of the reasons for that in the Statement. At the G20 we made a $2 billion pledge—£1.6 billion—to the Green Climate Fund. That maintains our position as one of the top donors to the world’s biggest climate fund. I think it was a little churlish of the noble Lord, for whom I have the greatest affection, to say that no commitment was displayed. The UK has been a top donor to the fund since its inception in 2015 and, frankly, this latest pledge ensures that we will remain so. This Government are absolutely committed to making advances in this area.

Lord Harris of Haringey: I appreciate this is not correct procedure, but the Minister is putting words in my mouth. I did not say that there was no commitment. What I said was that apparently the UN Secretary-General did not think that this country was worthy of an invitation to a summit. Nor has the Minister answered the question, now put twice, of why the Prime Minister is not attending the General Assembly.

Lord True: My Lords, I think my inference was reasonable on the basis of the remarks the noble Lord made.

Lord Berkeley of Knighton: My Lords, I hope I may make one aside, which I do not think has been mentioned yet. I found it very touching to see a British Prime Minister of Indian descent representing this country and landing in India. I think that says quite a lot about diversity and opportunity in this country. I realise that the Prime Minister comes from a well-heeled background: nevertheless, it is wonderful to see a British Prime Minister from that background representing us.
On Morocco, is the Minister aware of reports that that country is turning down aid from some countries? As for China and India, of course, however well we may do in this country on getting our carbon emissions down, it will pale into insignificance if we cannot get those countries—and indeed the US—to bring theirs down. My final point is on China. Was mention made of the persecution of the Uighurs?

Lord True: On the noble Lord’s final point, which was discussed briefly in another Statement yesterday, the Prime Minister met Premier Li of China. I think it is the first time in four or five years that there has been a meeting with such a high-level member of the Chinese Government, and he was certainly told in no uncertain terms what the UK thinks in relation to human rights, Hong Kong and other matters.
I will not follow his comments on the nature of the Prime Minister. I think the Prime Minister values the relationships we seek to forge internationally across the world. If, by some good fortune, his personality is helpful in a particular relationship, that would be good fortune, but let us not underestimate that getting diplomatic deals is not a matter of sentiment. Of course, one applauds the diversity that one sees in all parties at the moment, but getting deals is a matter of hard negotiation. That is what counts at the end of the day —not sentiment.
I have not seen the reports that Morocco is turning down support, but I will look into the matter and refer the noble Lord’s comments to my colleagues in the Foreign Office. I believe the noble Lord asked another question, which has slipped my mind. I will look at Hansard, if I may, and follow up on it.

Baroness Lawlor: My Lords, I thank the Minister for letting us hear the Statement in full. I was very glad to hear him refer to the global involvement of the UK and our accession to the CPTPP. Could he let us know the timetable for submitting our written confirmation of that protocol from 17 July and whether any of the other parties have indicated their timetable for confirming?

Lord True: No, my Lords, I am not briefed to give specific timescales, but I will certainly let my noble friend and the House know if such information is made available. I apologise for that.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, somewhat to my surprise, it would appear that there are no further questions on the Statement—in which case we will move on.

Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill
 - Committee

Clause 1: Import prohibition

Amendment 1

The Earl of Caithness: Moved by The Earl of Caithness
1: Clause 1, page 1, line 1, at end insert—“(A1) This section has effect in a calendar year only if, before the end of the previous calendar year, the Secretary of State has made a statement in writing to the effect that, in the Secretary of State’s view, its operation will not cause unintended and perverse consequences for wildlife conservation and for communities in areas outside Great Britain where hunting takes place.”

Earl of Caithness: My Lords, this Bill has very little effect in or on the UK, but it potentially has huge effect in every country of the world where trophy hunting takes place. As was made very clear at Second Reading, many of the reasons for this Bill are emotionally, rather than scientifically, based. The position of the proponents of the Bill is entrenched.
The Joint Nature Conservation Committee, better known as the JNCC, is a public body set up by Parliament that advises the Government and devolved Administrations on UK-wide and international nature conservation. It is very relevant to this Bill. On its website it states:
“As the UK’s statutory advisor on international conservation matters, we have a long history of experience in this area. We play a leading role in providing high-quality evidence and technical advice on the development and implementation of international nature conservation agreements, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity … the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats … and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)”.
Thus, the JNCC performs a similar role for the Government in respect of animals as does Kew in respect of plants. Crucially, it provides scientific advice to the UK CITES management authority, Defra, as to whether imports are likely to be detrimental to species survival or not. Its views are of the utmost importance and its advice should be followed, unless there is good reason not to. It has given independent advice to the Secretary of State, who has ignored it. Although she was warned it would happen, in doing so she has undermined its credibility and the standing of the UK in international conservation. If its own Secretary of State does not heed the advice of the JNCC, why should any other nature organisation in the world do so?
To me, the most striking pieces of independent advice and damning criticism that the JNCC has given the Secretary of State, and which she has ignored, are: Defra has no interest in the efficacy or the impact of legislation; the consultation on the Bill was expressly designed to create a political mandate for action; Defra and the UK will need to own the negative consequences of any ban, as well as taking the plaudits from those in favour; and an outright ban is likely to have unintended and perverse consequences for wildlife conservation and the viability of communities reliant on hunting revenue.
It is the last piece of advice by the JNCC that inspired this amendment. I am grateful to it, and to the freedom of information laws in this country which have allowed its advice to be made public. My amendment would require the Secretary of State to be advised each year about the unintended consequences of trophy hunting that the JNCC believes will occur, and to publish their judgment. If it is found that there are unintended consequences, Clause 1 would cease to have effect.
In moving Amendment 1, I confirm that I have no interest to declare. I do not own a hunting trophy and agree that some criticisms of trophy hunting, when it is not carried out to the highest standards, are justified. When it is badly managed, trophy hunting can be unsustainable. It can lead to local level overexploitation of some wildlife species and illegal killings. When it is  badly managed, it can affect the social structure, behaviour and genetics of some species. It can affect other wildlife and tourism. Some benefits that should reach local communities do not, and it can engage in unethical practices which affect wildlife conservation. However, these criticisms do not apply to all trophy hunting and one should not throw the good out with the bad.
Let me mention some of the benefits of well-managed trophy hunting that justify my amendment. The most important is that as a result of trophy hunting, land is set aside for wildlife. The greatest pressure on wildlife is from human population growth, with its demand for food and the increasing expansion of agriculture and urban development in former wild areas. To avoid this pressure, the remaining wild areas must provide jobs, resources and other financial benefits.
In Tajikistan, trophy hunting conservation initiated by NGOs and the local community started in 2008, and now about 420,000 hectares of land is managed by local, traditional hunters from a community living an almost subsistence existence. Around 300 jobs have been created and 20,000 community members benefit indirectly. Sadly, all too often with human beings comes organised crime. That crime, poaching, has facilitated a dramatic decline of elephants and rhinoceros in parts of Africa and southern Asia, reversing decades of conservation achievements. Poaching is indiscriminate as to age, sex or species and in most cases leads to a painful and lingering death for the animal, whereas trophy hunting can be selective, with a clean and quick death. Poaching in the hunting areas of Tajikistan is now almost non-existent. The numbers of Asiatic ibex and markhor have increased and the decline in the population of snow leopards has been reversed. There is a much more stable food supply for the community.
In neighbouring Pakistan, in Gilgit-Baltistan, there are now more than 50 designated community conservation areas, covering more than 30% of the total land area—about 21,750 square kilometres. As a result of the community-based trophy hunting programme there, the population of Astore markhor, which is the national animal of the country, increased from 1,900 in 2012 to 2,800 in 2016. Similarly, in Balochistan, the population of Sulaiman markhor, which is an endemic sub-species that had a highly threatened status because of the Afghan war and the tribal area system—which had no solid implementation of wildlife laws—doubled between 2000 and 2011 to over 3,500. As a result, markhor were upgraded to near-threatened species by the IUCN in 2015. For anyone interested in conservation that is a remarkable success story, due to trophy hunting.
Trophy hunting helps to conserve over 1.3 million square kilometres of land in Africa, which is approximately the size of France, Germany and Spain combined. It is also a fifth more than the combined area of the national parks there. If these vast areas of land were not used for wildlife conservation, in all likelihood they would see alternative and less conservation-friendly land uses.
Another important benefit is that trophy hunting earns money for conservation. It provides economic benefits to government organisations, wildlife agencies, local communities and landowners. Trophy hunting is the major source of livelihood for the communities in  the far-flung mountainous areas of Pakistan. Village-based conservancies have been formed there and the money obtained from trophy hunting has been distributed through them. Eighty per cent of the revenue generated through trophy hunting goes into local communities, most of it being spent on public welfare works, while 20% of the total revenue generated goes to government departments, which usually pay the local watchers and staff salaries from it. In the Gilgit-Baltistan region of Pakistan a total of $1.35 million has been generated between 2017 and 2020, while in Balochistan, since 1989, trophy hunting has brought in a total revenue of nearly $1.75 million, of which about $1.4 million has been given to the local communities, with almost $300,000 paid to the Government there. These are substantial sums of money, especially when one considers that the per capita income is less than $1,000.
In Mexico, bighorn sheep were reintroduced to the island of Tiburón in 1975. The island is owned and managed by the Seri Indians. When numbers grew above the carrying capacity for the island, the surplus stock was either licensed for trophy hunting or young animals were sold for translocation. Between 1998 and 2007 the Seri, who controlled the process, raised $3.2 million. The funds provided much-needed income locally and were reinvested in Seri community projects, the management of the bighorn sheep population, and the maintenance of the island in an undisturbed state.
In Canada, the polar bear hunts form part of a larger indigenous co-management system in which Inuit communities participate because they choose to. Legally, they can hunt what they want so the choice is very deliberate, because they believe in co-operation. The USA tried to help polar bears by reducing hunting through a trophy imports ban, but totally ignored the fact that local communities can legally harvest their quota of bears regardless. The result has been a considerable loss of income to the Inuit community in these small, remote areas, where there have been very limited ways of generating income.
For most hunters, bringing a trophy back is important. If one is prevented from doing that, either the hunt will not take place or, if it goes ahead, the hunter will not have to pay a trophy fee. In many places, the trophy fee makes up a significant part of the revenue and its loss would weaken the economic model of that area. Thus, the effect of the Bill will be to undermine, and perhaps stop, trophy hunting, with a consequential loss of revenue for conservation and local communities.

Lord Bellingham: My noble friend talks about loss of income. One of the points put forward by proponents of the Bill is that that loss could be made up through ODA and the aid budgets of different countries. Does he agree that it would not be a good use of overseas aid to make up for the money that is going to these communities as a result of trophy hunting?

Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend on that point. One also needs to bear in mind that the local communities do not want aid. They want actually to be able to look after themselves, generate their own income and manage  their populations without being given handouts by countries. They need help but do not need the type of money my noble friend has just referred to.
Another benefit from trophy hunting is that other wildlife that is not targeted for hunting is also protected, as are the local flora and fauna. I mentioned the trophy hunting of the markhor and ibex, and I add the argali sheep. Research has shown that, because those animals are now licensed to be shot, not only have their numbers increased but the wildlife population has also grown overall. This means a greater supply of food for the snow leopards and, consequently, more are found in hunting reserves in Tajikistan than outside them. Having a greater supply of food means there is less conflict with humans and their livestock. In hunting areas in Pakistan, the number of retaliatory killings of carnivores such as snow leopards, wolves, bears and foxes has been reduced, and tolerance has increased because of the economic benefits of trophy hunting.
The status of the snow leopard, formerly listed as “endangered”, has been upgraded to “near threatened” by IUCN. Similarly, well-managed trophy hunting areas have led to increases in the black rhino and wild dog populations in Zimbabwe and the grizzly bear populations in the USA. An often-overlooked benefit of more wildlife is that there is steadier and more controlled meat provision to local communities, where many are undernourished and on poor diets. The trophy hunting ban in Botswana led to less meat being available, more poaching and a new illegal trade in bush meat. In trophy hunting areas, the local flora and fauna are much more likely to survive, as these are areas of pristine, intact habitats, and they are not subject to the ravages suffered by land overgrazed by farmers desperate to eke out a living.
Benefits from trophy hunting can go to the communities that live alongside wildlife, and this can reduce human-wildlife conflict, increase tolerance of wildlife and improve livelihoods. It can help change attitudes towards wildlife, from it being seen as a threat and nuisance to it being seen as a useful resource. Another of the benefits of trophy hunting has been improvement in education, especially in the Gilgit-Baltistan region I mentioned. The literacy rate has increased from 10% to more than 70% in the last two decades. Girls’ education has become paramount in the area. The women are now taking part in the decision-making within the family, whereas, before, they were unable to have a say in any matter. Child and early marriage of girls has been reduced because of an increase in the literacy rate, and most of the girls now get higher education from universities. What a benefit for the local community there has been.
In marked contrast, where a ban on hunting has been imposed, there is evidence that both wildlife and the local population have suffered. In Botswana, there was a reduction in community benefits which included income, employment, funeral insurance, scholarships and housing funds for the needy and elderly. The ban led to a loss of $700,000 of income and 200 jobs in the Okavango Delta.
I will mention one final benefit of trophy hunting: it can conserve traditions and allow the traditional indigenous use of resources. Trophy hunting is not  new nor a relic of the colonial era, as is so often misleadingly suggested. All around the world, it has been depicted in ancient rock art. African chiefs kept such trophies and gave them as gifts. It incites a sense of closeness with nature and ancestors among the local people, and it has led to numerous traditions for people around the world. Polar bear hunting in Canada must be guided by indigenous people using traditional methods. Hunters must be transported by non-motorised means, which means a sled pulled by a dog team. It is not an exaggeration to say that polar bear hunting helped keep this Inuit cultural tradition alive after the introduction of snowmobiles.
The arguments for and against trophy hunting are not black and white but heavily nuanced: there are merits and demerits, and each case is different. We will do our fragile planet no favours by backing one prejudiced point of view that appears to be led far more by a radical animal rights agenda than by a conservation one—

Lord Swire: I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I entirely agree with him that this must be evidence-based legislation, and a lot of a misleading and mischievous false information has circulated around this subject for some time. Does he share my surprise that the Minister for Environment and Tourism in Botswana felt obliged to issue today a press release, which I think was circulated to all noble Lords, refuting the allegations made by the acting CEO of the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting, Dr Adam Cruise, concerning trophy hunting in Botswana? Is that not precisely the sort of misleading information—rather arrogant and high-handed to a country such as Botswana—that we should avoid?

Earl of Caithness: My noble friend is absolutely right, and I am sure that the source of that misinformation will not be a surprise to him or anyone else. It is a regular source of misinformation, and it was quite correctly shot down in flames by the Botswanan Government.
My noble friend raised an important point, on which I will end. We should use the Bill to improve conservation by getting rid of bad trophy hunting practices, while at the same time keeping the good and improving standards and welfare for all. I beg to move.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, for bringing the Bill to the House and championing it. For the Green group, I express my strongest possible support for the Bill as it stands—and opposition to all the amendments.
I have been in your Lordships’ House for nearly four years, and I have to admit that I was rather surprised when I looked at the misnamed “grouping of amendments”. I have never seen this before: it is a list of 62 amendments in 62 groups. It is surprising that people who might perhaps regard themselves as champions of the traditions of the House have produced something that has not been seen in recent history—and I checked with someone who has been around the House for much longer. It could keep this House going for several  days. Those who would champion the traditions and progress of the House appear to be heading in the opposite direction with this.
It is interesting to look at the gender balance of the names on the amendments: every single one is male. There is something to be said there. Only the other day, I had a conversation with a noble Lord about how it has often been put forward that, if we could hand over some countries in the global south to the women, and let the women run things, they would look different. That might be an interesting case study tonight.

Lord Robathan: I understand what the noble Baroness is saying, but is she really implying that those people, such as myself, who put down amendments have no right to express an opinion on this, and that their views are valueless because they are not female?

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: I would love to see a true balance of gender in contributions in your Lordships’ House, as I would love to see a balance of membership in it. Of course, we are a long way from that point here and in the other place.
Something else that joins the people expressing views here tonight in terms of moving the amendments is that these are a small number of people who appear to think that hunting is a sport. It might be something like a sport if you gave the elephants, lions and birds guns but, until you do that, it is a slaughter—and that is what is being supported by the proposers of amendments to this very modest and heavily supported Bill.
It is noticeable that the amenders and the people sitting in the Chamber tonight are all largely sitting on the Benches on one side. But this was a 2019 Conservative manifesto promise—to ban imports of hunting trophies for endangered species. The intent for such legislation was in the Queen’s Speeches in 2019 and 2022. A 2022 public opinion survey showed that 80% of the British public support a ban on the imports of hunting trophies. Again, for those champions of tradition who say that we are the unelected House and that we should not stand in the way of the will of the House of Commons, the Commons passed this Bill with only minor amendments in March 2023.
I want to pick up just one point expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who spoke about closeness to nature. We are talking about imports of these trophies into the UK. Practices of indigenous people embedded in local landscapes is one thing; a UK dentist or aristocrat bringing back a trophy from Africa is something else again. So I ask everyone proposing amendments to this Bill to search their conscience to ask themselves what they are really doing in the Committee this evening.

Baroness Wolf of Dulwich: My Lords, I express my support for the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I support it as the first amendment because it highlights straightaway the need to put conservation at the heart of this Bill—not simply disgust at the idea of trophy hunting, but conservation. I hope that the Government will take account of this  and of the arguments that they will hear this evening on both sides and that they will be able to bring an improved Bill back to the House.
I was struck on reading back through the Second Reading speeches, which unfortunately I mostly missed, at how widespread the disgust is at this practice. I share it, as I have never shot anything or hunted anything, and I cannot imagine why people want to do this. But of course the point of this Bill is not to express disgust at this; it is to improve the prospects for animals that are being hunted. To do this, we have to look at the broader context. Particularly in Africa, we have a situation of huge rising demographic pressure and huge rising demand for the products of poaching, especially as those countries that believe in traditional medicine get richer, and the pressure on poaching for the ingredients for traditional medicine becomes more severe year by year. We can make sense of this Bill only by looking at that wider context and looking at whether it takes account of those pressures.
In the earlier debate, there was a certain amount of, “Well, we all pick our experts, don’t we?” Of course, we do all pick our experts to some extent—but I am sure that noble Lords would agree with me that this is not a reason not ever to listen to experts. I was extremely struck by the recent letter to the Times, signed by almost 200 different experts, who were very clear in their request that our Government
“should support an amendment whereby hunting trophies are permitted only if”—
I would say if and when—
“they demonstrate clear benefits to both conservation and local livelihoods, fulfilling the government’s manifesto commitment and helping, rather than harming, conservation.”.
I do not know whether any noble Lords have ever been involved in trying to put together a letter to a newspaper, but when you get one that is signed by almost 200 people from a very wide range of countries and associations, you have to feel that there must be some major arguments and major concerns that need addressing. Just to name some randomly, we have: Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority, the Frankfurt Zoological Society and the charity Stop Rhino Poaching; and we have experts from Kew, Oxford and Cambridge. Those are experts that we need to take some account of.
I was also very struck that, in fact, our Government internally recognise that hunting is not necessarily at odds with conservation. In fact, the Minister made this point himself at Second Reading, pointing out that
“some of the richest wildlife habitats that we find anywhere on these islands are sustained through the activities of people who hunt for sport”.—[Official Report, 16/6/23; col. 2245.]
I want to emphasise the need to take account of expert opinion, and the need to look at the context within which trophy hunting takes place. This does not mean that there is no place for this Bill. As the noble Earl has said, there are nuanced arguments. But when there are so many people arguing that we need to amend and improve this Bill, we should take these recommendations seriously and make sure that conservation is at the heart of this Bill. I therefore support the amendment.

Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I believe that most reasonable people, and certainly most noble Lords taking part today, support wholeheartedly the objective of conservation that the noble Baroness was just talking about. We always want to protect our shrinking wildlife on this planet, so it is always helpful to start on the areas on which we agree, and that is one of them. But the perception on which this Bill is based is that a number of the world’s most endangered and iconic species are threatened with extinction by excessive hunting, and that by prohibiting the importation of trophies taken from these animals we will set an example to other countries and, perhaps more importantly, prevent the decline in the numbers of those species.
The argument on the other side is that the income derived from hunting for these trophies—the trophies themselves do not matter, of course—improves conservation in a number of different ways. The most obvious way—and I think that my noble friend Lord Caithness mentioned it—is that, in hunting areas, the habitat is being protected. That is the most important thing, because it is loss of habitat that is the greatest threat to wildlife. On the other side of the coin, we have learned in the course of this Bill that trophy hunting is not actually a threat to any endangered species at all—it is other things that threaten them, but not trophy hunting. None of the animals that would be covered in the two annexes to which this Bill will apply when it becomes an Act are at all threatened in any way, shape or form by trophy hunting. They are threatened by other things, the most important of which is loss of habitat; that is, to some degree or another that is open to debate, protected by trophy hunting. If you have a concession, a piece of land on which you are conducting your hunting business, you are obviously going to protect it because otherwise it damages your business. That is widely demonstrated.
It is often said that this House has an expert on almost every subject. I have to confess that I am not an expert on the subject before us this evening, although I have some experience of conservation here in the United Kingdom, and I have a passion for the wilder parts of the world, some of which I visited, and the creatures that live there. I have never shot game in Africa or in other parts of the world—the Far East, or whatever—so I, too, have no direct interest to declare in this Bill.
It is clear that opinion is divided in the Committee, as it is everywhere, on which side of the argument one falls—and that is quite normal. What is interesting to me, as the noble Baroness touched on, is what has happened during the course of the passage of this Bill, in its passage to the other place and in the several months since it came here first in June—rather a long time ago. I have been involved in a lot of Private Members’ Bills over the past 35 years that I have been in this House, and I cannot remember any on which such an extraordinary deluge of information has been poured on our heads and through our letterboxes. Of course, some of it is very good and some of it is not so good—that is a fact of life.
We have had an extraordinary amount of high-quality information provided by academics. Two speakers have already referred to the letter from academics that  appeared in a newspaper. I have tried to get letters into newspapers, and it is very unusual to do so. Getting 10 Peers to sign one brings herding cats to mind, so getting 150 academics from across the world—which must also be a bit like herding cats—to sign a letter is extraordinary. These were not just any old people. It is a pretty impressive list. I do not remember it happening before.
I also do not remember another piece of legislation that does not really affect this country at all but does affect others. The way some people speak, you would think that hunting is a minority activity. Actually, 99% of the countries in the world have hunting; those that do not are the minority. It is normal in most parts of the world and cultures. I have never come across a situation where more affected countries have been so vociferous in their opposition to a Bill that affects them. I do not remember the British Government—although I am sure there is a case of it—enacting a piece of legislation like this, which has an economic, social and cultural effect on other countries, without asking or meeting them and completely ignoring their views. It is quite extraordinary.
The countries most affected by this—the southern African countries that have hunting—have, like the academics, been unanimous in their opposition. Two groups took the trouble to get on an aeroplane and come over here. Can noble Lords imagine the Minister jumping on a plane because of something happening in the South African Parliament and dealing with a group there? We had a Minister, heads of wildlife departments and an MP come to this House because they were so horrified by what would happen. The evidence we were given was extraordinary, detailed and backed by hard, peer-reviewed research.
One thing that affected me most was that one of the people who came here, an MP from a constituency in Botswana that I could not begin to pronounce, on the edge of the Okavango, told us: “It seems to me that British parliamentarians care more about animals than they do about our people. I go to funerals of my constituents who are killed because they live alongside wildlife. Their cattle are killed and their crops are destroyed. Four or five constituents every year, usually children on their way to school, are killed by animals”. That is a fact of life when humans live alongside wildlife.
We have debates about rewilding in this country—sometimes very sensible and sometimes not quite so sensible—in which people say that we do not want wolves in England because they are too big and might kill our sheep and dogs. It is quite right that we have those impassioned arguments, but can you imagine saying to someone in Surrey, “We’re going to put a couple of prides of lions outside Esher and a herd of buffalo in the Surrey Hills”? They would not be very happy about it. These people live alongside these animals all the time. This MP was saying that it looked like we cared more about the animals that we do not have to live with than his constituents who do. We need to take that very seriously.
As my noble friend has said, trophy hunting is a major force for conservation. The 1.3 million square kilometres in Africa is one-fifth more land than all the national parks combined. We need to think carefully, because this is big stuff. Trophy hunters obviously  want to continue hunting, so they preserve their quarry in those areas and actively protect the habitats and other related animals around. More importantly, the communities are therefore incentivised, economically and in other ways, to accept the animals, which are undoubtedly difficult to live with, and prevent poaching. If they have no value to those people, if they are a negative and not a positive, how on earth can we expect them to protect them? Surely, the object of this Bill is to protect them, so we need to incentivise those people. Trophy hunting is one of the main ways at the moment to do that.
Trophies can account for up to 50% of the revenue derived from hunting, as I think my noble friend mentioned. If you remove the ability to take away the trophy, you take 50% of the income away, for no real gain to anybody. After all, trophies in themselves are not important. What matters is how we manage the wildlife and the consequences to them, not the trophy. Although we have been told that you do not really need hunting and could replace it with photo tourism, we need to be clear that the overwhelming evidence we have received is this: of course you can increase photo tourism, but that will not work in the areas in which there is trophy hunting, because they are different. There is not the infrastructure and they are not the sort of places that are good for photographic tourism anyway. It simply will not work. We were told that not just once or twice but by all the evidence we received, which was detailed and explained why.
The evidence we received on the other side of the coin, which said that you could do tourism there and do not need trophy hunting, gave no specific examples at all. I found it extraordinary that I got from the JNCC—many of your Lordships will have too—nine detailed pieces of peer-reviewed research demonstrating where trophy hunting occurs, how and why it is important and the numbers, while we did not receive a single piece of specific evidence going the other way that we could rely on.
Welfare has come up in this debate. This is not a welfare Bill, but a conservation one. It is important to note that the two are different subjects. I am not a naturalist or an expert in these things, but I can give noble Lords a fact which I know to be completely true: 100% of wild animals will die. Some 99% of them will die of injury, illness, starvation, lack of water, competition with others and being predated upon—not a very nice one—while probably less than 0.01%, a tiny number, will be killed by trophy hunting.
I can also assure noble Lords that, of all the deaths that wild animals undergo, probably the one with the least welfare concerns is to be shot by a bullet. No wild animals die in their beds or have palliative care. None is surrounded by its relatives when it leaves this planet. They all die nasty, painful and long-suffering deaths. That is what nature does. The only ones that have a short, quick death are those that are hunted. A welfarist wanting to improve the welfare of animals—which is not the point of this Bill—cannot object to this on those grounds. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, shaking her head, but this is a fact. If she thinks I have got something wrong, I invite her to come in on it, because this is pretty factual.
I said at the outset that we cannot all be experts on every subject that comes before this House, although some noble Lords seem to think they are from the frequency with which they bend our ears. We must therefore rely, to a certain extent, on the information we are given. We have to decide, sift it and look at the reliability of its sources. As I have said, I have been extremely impressed by the evidence that has come to us supporting the conservation points of this Bill and making it clear that, as drafted, it does not have the conservation benefits we would want.

Lord Bellingham: Before the noble Lord moves on, will he also reflect on one point? We have indeed, as he rightly pointed out, been inundated with extremely interesting and very knowledgeable briefings from both sides of the argument. The overwhelming conclusion of those people who are concerned about the Bill, do not want to stop it in its tracks but want to improve it, is that they feel very strongly indeed that, with the right amendments, the Bill could in fact be fit for purpose and could command widespread support, particularly among those countries in southern Africa that he referred to.

Lord Mancroft: I am grateful to my noble friend. He is absolutely right: all those countries that we have all had letters from said that they would support the Bill if it had a proper conservation amendment in it, as is on the Order Paper today. We have had fascinating information. To me, the most fascinating information—I think it has already been referred to—was the stuff from the JNCC, the Government’s official adviser on conservation. It was consulted over a period of time by a number of Ministers as the Bill was formed over a period of years, drafted and redrafted. I have seen, and I am sure that your Lordships have, too, lots of advice from different committees, groups and people to Ministers. I do not think I have ever seen a more categorically strong piece of advice from a government advisory body saying, “No, this Bill as you have drafted it at the moment will have severe conservation problems and deficits”.
If we want the Bill to be a good model of conservation and to help the wildlife we all want to help, it needs to have in it certain measures, and those measures are in an amendment of mine that we will look at later this evening: Amendment 34. In the meantime, Amendment 1 from my noble friend Lord Caithness is very interesting because it would give the Secretary of State the ability to look in advance at what the results are going to be. It would give him or her a duty to do that and to see whether the Bill is going to do the good that some claim it will or the harm that others claim. As such, I would be very happy to support my noble friend’s amendment.

Lord Weir of Ballyholme: My Lords, as we move through the early stages of this debate, I think it is important, first, that collectively, as a House, we recognise that there is a wide range of opinions not simply within this House but without it. I think it is right that we conduct this debate in a tone and a manner that does not denigrate anyone’s opinion. I think that  what is held is held very passionately by a number of people and that both the movers and the opponents of the amendments are doing so in a very sincere manner.
I take exception particularly to one thing that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said: I think that every Member of this House has the complete right, irrespective of gender, to put forward whatever they feel to be in the best interests of legislation and to contribute to this debate. It will not come as a great surprise that I do not intend to undergo a course of gender reassignment or self-identification. As a DUP Peer, I think, to be fair, we have a reputation: we are not regarded as a particularly woke bunch, or indeed as people who would be naturally inclined to a left of centre approach to things. It therefore may come as a bit of a surprise that this may be the first time in my number of months in this House that I find myself, not necessarily in terms of tone but in terms of content, largely in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and commending the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, for her actions in bringing this forward.
There will be others who speak in this debate who come with a greater level of expertise, and we can all trade statistics and representations that have been made to us. I have to say that I think the case for this amendment and from some of the opponents of the Bill has been heavily oversold. Trophy hunting does not create, as the impression has been given, some great utopia for society that will cure all our ills. It seems from the supporters of this amendment to simultaneously both preserve the ancien régime of indigenous peoples while at the same time being the principal driver of social progress within these countries: it seems to be the close correlation, if not the main motivation, behind female emancipation and education. If people are making the case for this amendment, it is important that it is not oversold.
I believe that trophy hunting makes an economic contribution to these countries, but there are some statistics that suggest that this is fairly minimal. As for the idea that this is being done as some form of benevolent social welfare for some of the residents, we know that, at the end of the day, for those on the ground this is making a very small contribution. The trickle-down effect is very limited. The range of these amendments would make the Bill much more complex and open to legal challenge than would otherwise be the case and create a regime which would enhance the level of uncertainty within the Bill.
I appreciate that the job, particularly in Committee, is to see what improvements can be made within the Bill. I have to say that, generally speaking—and I do not want to prejudice any of the arguments that will be made—it would appear that most of these amendments come from people who are vehement opponents of the Bill. That is a perfectly legitimate position, but let us not pretend that the intention of the amendments is particularly to improve the Bill. I think their impact would be to create the death by a thousand cuts of the Bill and to create a range of loopholes across the Bill that that would fundamentally weaken its purpose.
While I mention loopholes, I have not put down an amendment, but it may be useful if the Minister, whenever he is summing up towards the end, could deal with one loophole in the Bill that I think needs to  be closed. In another place, my colleagues raised the issue of why Northern Ireland was excluded from the Bill. The argument was made that it would be in some way incompatible with the single market, to which Northern Ireland is apparently still subject. Leaving aside constitutional issues that I have some concerns about, I have to say that as an argument there has been a level of misinformation there. Irrespective of whether you are in favour or against these amendments, the single market is not an excuse for Northern Ireland’s exclusion, as four countries within the EU have either enacted very similar legislation or are in the process of doing so. So I urge the Government to consider this again.
For me—this may be a simplistic approach—this is about the signal that we send out as a civilised nation. Trophy hunting and taking back those trophies to the United Kingdom is something that is no longer part, if it ever was, of a virtuous, civilised nation. Therefore, I urge the Committee not only to reject this amendment but to oppose the amendments throughout the Bill, which will not necessarily improve the Bill but will act as a device, bit by bit, to water it down.

Lord Swire: My Lords, I must take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Weir, because I do not think that these amendments that some of us are proposing this evening are designed to wreck the Bill. On the contrary, the conversations I have had with my colleagues, who take this issue very seriously, are all about improving the Bill, which is why I will support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I think there is a better amendment coming from the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, but I think this is a good amendment and this is the role of the second Chamber.
Without giving too much away, some of us have been lobbied quite hard over the past few days about the Bill and told, for instance, in that famous Whips’ argument, “If you don’t accept this, you will get something much worse”. Well, if we accepted that as a serious argument, there would be no point in having this revising Chamber at all: we would just accept all bad legislation coming from the other place and roll over and have our tummies tickled. We might as well stay away. The point of this House, if it is to have a point at all, is to examine legislation, reject bad legislation and, where necessary and feasible, improve the legislation. So, I utterly reject the noble Lord’s comment that this is designed to wreck the Bill.
I have various declarations to make. My first declaration is that I have no desire to shoot an animal in Africa, nor to bring a trophy home. In fact, I believe that if my wife were to wake up in the morning and find a kudu head at the end of the bed, she might react in the same way as if it were the severed head of a horse, to use an analogy from a film—which is quite a dangerous thing to do and was recently done rather poorly by President Biden.
However, the point is not whether I want to import trophies here from Africa or elsewhere. I set aside my own personal views and want to look at the legislation as it stands. The other two declarations I should make is, first, that I consider the Minister to be a close friend of mine—I do not know whether he will consider me  in the same light after this—and I am afraid that for him it is a question of the cab rank principle of KCs that he has to accept whatever brief is coming his way. However, he is nothing but a serious conservationist, and I slightly wonder what is going through his mind privately—but we will not dwell on his grief: he will do this job in the entirely professional way that he handles so much of his brief, which seems to be a brief without beginning and without end.
However, the second and more serious point I want to make—this is a proper declaration—is that I am the deputy chairman of the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council, which is designed to grow intra-Commonwealth trade. We heard in the previous Statement about the rise of Africa and how the African Union will now be represented at the G20, and Africa is coming of age. Everyone is looking at Africa. Hopefully, the British Government and our allies will look a bit more closely and try to fill the void that has been left by some countries to stop the Wagner Group, China and others exploiting that magnificent continent.
I am therefore very conscious of the role of the Commonwealth and of the perception that in some way the Commonwealth is a hangover from colonialism and the British Empire. Manifestly it is not; you only have to look at the most recent accession countries to the Commonwealth to see that they have absolutely no historic connection with this country whatever. However, it is there, and we should accept that there is that lingering suspicion. I am therefore enormously sensitive and immediately alert to the possibility that anything we say or do in this country about developing countries, particularly in Africa, could be conceived or misconceived as some form of neocolonialism. I know there is a temptation, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, from the other side tried to paint this as an all-boys club gathering—I was rather amused that the next, excellent speaker was the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, which put paid to that rather cheap accusation.
The point is that Africa is watching. As the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said, we had a delegation of Ministers from some African countries. As a Minister I certainly would never have gone to an African country in the same way they came here to make these points. They came all this way to talk about what they wanted to do in their own communities, with their own experiences, and not the great principle of whether trophy hunting is morally right or repellent—which some people feel, and I absolutely accept that—but what it means to their local livelihoods and their local population. We should factor that in.
It makes me feel extremely uncomfortable that here we are, sitting on our well-upholstered behinds in the lovely gilt and leather confines of the House of Lords, telling people in Africa, in this century, in this day and age, how they should go about making their living. What an appalling idea that we could think that we could replace what they are trying to do by making this illegal, destroying that part of their livelihood and saying that we will replace it with aid. That is not what aid is meant for. It is not meant to make populations dependent; it is meant to liberate people, to encourage them to get up, do their own thing to the best of their ability and trade their way out of poverty. I will never  vote for anything in this House which has an adverse effect on the livelihoods of people in those countries. We should think very carefully before we start telling those people what they should be doing.

Lord Turnbull: My Lords, I am sorry that I was not able to speak at Second Reading; I found out that it was scheduled only after the speakers’ list had closed. However, I have read the Hansard for that debate.
Like others, I am now struggling to find a rationale for choosing which amendments to support and which to oppose. This is difficult, as the Bill is flawed. Its stated aim, found in the impact assessment, is
“to ensure that imports of hunting trophies to the UK are not placing additional pressure on species of conservation concern”.
This muddles up two completely different objectives, the promotion of conservation and limiting import of trophies. The link between the two is tenuous. Acting on trophies will do precious little to promote conservation. As the Bill applies only to imports into the UK, it will do nothing to curb the appetite of the legendary Minnesota dentist.
In my view, the thirst for trophies is really a basis for bragging rights. “Look at me, how brave I am and how skilful—I have killed this magnificent beast who could as easily have killed me.” However, these days, bragging rights can equally be secured by photos or videos, so even if trophy imports are banned, hunting will continue. We should not just think that there is something called trophy hunting; there are trophies and there is hunting. Instead, we should concentrate on the conservation objective: what animals are killed, where, by whom, and with what impact on the long-term health of herds.
This brings us to the key question of whether we believe commercial hunting is beneficial for conservation —I exclude here the detestable practice of canned hunting. A case has been made that it is beneficial. It brings money through licence fees into government coffers and it brings income, employment and, as has been mentioned, meat to local people. However, perhaps the greatest benefit is that the commercial hunting franchises can afford to put many more vehicles and trackers into the hunting areas to report on illegal hunting.
However, this positive narrative is valid only when some conditions are satisfied. First, wildlife authorities must be professionally staffed and capable of assessing herd numbers, herd health, and so on, and hence able to calculate how many animals could be killed each year without damage to the long-term health of the herd. In southern Africa, the area I know best, this condition is largely satisfied; indeed, there are many competent and committed wildlife scientists.
The problems develop downstream from that. Once scientists have made that calculation on what the offtake should be, the number of licences should always be based strictly on it. Sadly, however, this is not always the case. A Minister or a President can send a message to the director of wildlife saying that it would be very helpful in clinching a deal if some big investor were given, say, a leopard licence.
There is also the problem of the governance and behaviour of the safari franchises. Do they stick strictly to the number of licences and to where hunting is permitted? A typical arrangement in southern Africa is that there is a park or game reserve where no hunting is allowed, surrounded by game management areas where hunting is allowed. However, if a fine specimen appears just over the border of the park, it can be shot and recorded as having been killed in the hunting area. Also, the hunters will set up what is called a machan, which is a bait with a kind of hide just on the edge of the park to try to lure the key specimens outside. I also doubt that the safari companies are immune to pressure from their clients. If the Minnesotan dentist has a fine beast in his sights and is told that it cannot be shot because that is now the prime breeding male, the complaint will be, “I’ve paid $50,000 for this”, pressure which it is difficult for the professional hunter to resist.
I come down on the side of those who see too many negatives in professional hunting—too many things to be corrected—which outweigh the positives. However, the way to turn this around is to concentrate on reinforcing the integrity and governance of wildlife regulation and not by banning the import of trophies into the UK, which will achieve nothing.
Where do I stand on the amendments before us? One possibility is to support those which are clearly aimed at promoting the conservation objective, such as that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. The alternative is that the Minister listens yet again to the arguments which have been made. For example, at Second Reading, the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, described this as
“a well-intentioned but mistaken Bill”,
the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, called it
“a triumph of emotion over reason”,
and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said it was
“completely pointless and nothing more than symbolic”.—[Official Report, 16/6/23; cols. 2219-32.]
The Minister could then return on Report to say that the Government now accepted that the arguments against the Bill were too strong and that they would therefore no longer support it. It would then become simply a Private Member’s Bill, which could wither on the vine as so many others do, and maybe some thought could be given to what kind of Bill might be helpful.
I live in hope, but if the Minister would like to discuss this further, with me or any other critic of the Bill, I would be happy to meet him to share my experience of 40 years of travelling to and from southern Africa, including many of the game areas.
Finally, a word of caution on the reference of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, to older males who are past their prime and excluded from their herd or group, and who can die unhappy, cantankerous and alone while trying to upset the dynamics of the group. I wondered whether he was referring to this House, but I think in the end he was referring to the animals.

Earl of Erroll: My Lords, funnily enough, that is a very good note on which to start. I will come to the specific amendment in half a second. But one of the things people do not realise is that the whole thing  about trophy hunting—by the way, I do not go in for it at all, but I know something about herd management from deer in Scotland; not that I manage myself, but I know people who do—is that you do not want to shoot a young male coming along because it has a magnificent pelt. You want it to develop into a full-blooded animal, and when it is just past its prime that is when you cull it, for exactly that reason: the dynamics of the crotchety old male which is causing disruption. The noble Lord is absolutely right. If you are managing the whole thing properly to improve whatever it is people wish to hunt, it will be done in a much better and more sustainable way for nature as well.
It comes back to what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said. The essential message is financial incentive. This is what I got from the delegates from Africa who came over, whom I also met. They want to be able to manage these things in order to get the funding, and incentive and local buy-in from the low-level population to support this in order to get the conservation side right. That is the trouble: it is all very well pouring aid in from the top, but sometimes it does not get anywhere near the bottom. It is much better to have stuff coming in to give the ordinary people on the ground an incentive to try to work in an environmental and conservation way. The objective is to conserve properly: you get your herd profiles right and then you do some hunting.
The reason this amendment is so important is that it is about the unintended and perverse consequences. The Bill says that you cannot import trophies
“on behalf of the hunter”,
meaning the person who killed the thing. If you think about it, if you are managing a herd, you will have deaths at all age profiles in the herd, and people are going to hunt for meat. Many of the animals that have been taken out for meat will have horns and other bits that are useful for creating mementos for tourists. I should love some reassurance that this is not banning the production of tourist mementos which are not trophies—they are not the thing that the person paid a fortune to go to kill, but what you might call by-products of the results of it. I am afraid you will have culling going on in the herd, and there will also be animals that die, so why cannot their body parts be made useful, for greater sustainable use?
These are not plastics, poisoning the planet; they are naturally produced things. It will be much better to make all sorts of products and ornamental things from them than from fossil fuels. If one of the unintended consequences of the Bill is that it prevents all use of all animal body parts, it really should be examined again. We are just wasting a whole natural resource there, and I am a great believer that we should be using natural products, not artificially produced plastic products, which are killing the planet.
The main thing is that we have to get the financial incentives in the right place, to incentivise at the bottom level, and we also need to use all the animal stuff. This great fiction that people just go out to shoot a few trophies and that these will be animals in their prime is not really how it should work.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I can see that this could be a very constructive Bill, particularly if we got back to our manifesto promises—to refer to what the  noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said. The manifesto pledge was to ban imports from trophy hunting of endangered animals and, when we come to my Amendment 4, that is something I will enlarge on. This Bill goes a great deal further than that and, in doing so, as my noble friend Lord Swire said, it starts to create a very inappropriate relationship with the Governments of countries where trophy hunting takes place. We ought to be working with these countries to help them conserve the wildlife which they have—and which we would be terrified to have.
We in this country cannot even contemplate the return of the lynx, never mind the wolf. As for bears, certainly not, although they used to live here—never, not allowed. The pigs that escaped in the great storm are relentlessly persecuted. We have no concept of what we are asking these people to do in living alongside elephants, hippopotamus and rhinoceros, let alone lions and the other big predators. We should have such respect for and understanding of them, and we should be working really closely with them to enable that symbiosis to continue. If they are telling us that trophy hunting is part of that, we can ask them how they can grow through this and go beyond that, as well as offer real support in getting photographic tourism going and working on how we bring that idea back to the UK—not that it is the easiest, when we are all being told that we cannot fly any more. It ought to be a process where we are working closely with African Governments, not having them come here to protest what we are doing. This ought to be a process we are in together.

Lord Bellingham: Would my noble friend reflect on one specific point around all this? When we started out on this Bill, all those months ago, I do not think any of us believed for one moment that the importation into this country of, I think, two lions’ heads a year and 115 trophies a year would give rise to so much interest and concern from those countries in southern Africa that he mentions. Surely now they have made their point so clearly and powerfully, we should really take that on board, and therefore consider the amendments they support to improve the Bill.

Lord Lucas: I would have thought so.
We need to be rational about conservation. Conservation often involves killing. It is one of the reasons why the RSPB is not as successful as it should be in preserving wildlife; it is not good at controlling predators. Humans create predators—foxes live in towns, and the number of crows is enormously increased as a result of human activity. Together, they make wildlife extremely difficult to maintain, unless you do something about the predators.
We should understand that our nature as hunters and the role that we have taken on as the top predator carry with them responsibilities. In looking at what is going on in a community in Africa with a lot of wildlife, if we do not collaborate in providing it with income—something that makes that symbiosis profitable for them—that community will choose a different balance. That balance will be the balance we have chosen for ourselves here: “Let’s not have anything that causes us  inconvenience”. We here are the example of what we wish Africa to become, as symbolised in this Bill. We want wildlife eliminated, or at least restrained only to parks, and not part of people’s lives.
We should revise our thinking on this and, as my noble friend says, go back to our friends in Africa, work out how we can do this well and support what they are doing. If that involves trophy hunting, and that results in good conservation, that is something we should support for as long as it is necessary—though I have not, and never hope to, taken part in it myself.

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville: My Lords, we have been debating this amendment for some considerable time. There is a concern that we will not be able to get to the amendment with the real meat in it, so I will do my bit now.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, on her stamina and determination to do everything she can to protect animals from cruelty, harm and death no matter where they live. She has a reputation for being a doughty campaigner and is to be congratulated on agreeing to sponsor this Bill through the Lords. I have no interests to declare. I am not an animal expert but I have read the briefings.
This is a Bill that has government support. Originally, the measures would have been in the kept animals Bill, which was abandoned in favour of introducing various measures through Private Members’ Bills. This should have shortened the time taken to get measures on to the statute book. The glue traps Bill in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, was one such Bill; the Sharks Fin Bill in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, was another.
I apologise for not being present at Second Reading due to other commitments, but my noble friend Lord Rennard covered the ground very thoroughly at the time. Although not perfect, this Bill is short and to the point and bans the import into Great Britain of a trophy from an endangered animal that has been hunted. This trophy can be any part or derivative of an endangered animal that has been obtained by hunting.
We on the Liberal Democrat Benches fully support the aims and objectives of this Bill, as I believe do the Labour Benches. However, from the number of amendments that have been tabled, it is obvious that this Bill does not have unanimous support on the Government Benches. But it does have overall support across the whole House, as the hunting of wild game animals, while a sport that attracts those with unlimited resources to spend on their pursuits, is abhorrent to the vast majority of the Chamber and the general public.
Turning to Amendment 1, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, gave—at length and very knowledgeably—the rationale for his amendment, which would in effect ensure that the Bill is not able to progress. The effect of this amendment is, first, to grant the Secretary of State alone the power to decide whether a legal prohibition applies that is beyond the scope of the proposed prohibition, which is intended to be a blanket ban. Secondly, the proposal is not a standard clause retained in conservation or animal welfare legislation. On that basis, we do not support this amendment.
I regret and apologise for the fact that I am not able to stay until the end of this evening’s business, which I suspect will be long-winded and repetitious. What we have before us this evening is a Minister of great integrity, knowledge and compassion alongside four female Members of the House from different political parties all attempting, on behalf of their parties, to enable the aims and objectives of this Bill to move towards ending animal trophy hunting by preventing the importation of those trophies into Great Britain.
I regret to say that, ranged on the other side, we have some of the landed gentry of the country—mostly hereditary Peers—doing their utmost to filibuster and talk the Bill out. They are entitled to express their views, of course. I generally have great regard for the contribution made to the work of this Chamber by the hereditary Peers, but I fear that, this evening, they will not do their reputation among their colleagues or the public at large any favours at all. Despite the words of the noble Lord, Lord Swire, the opposers of this Bill will take the opportunity this evening to attempt to kill it off by filibustering to ensure that there is no Report stage due to a shortage of time. They do this because they know that if the Bill got to Report, none of their amendments would be passed and they would be roundly defeated.
This tactic was used to talk out the hereditary peers by-elections Bill, despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, and came mostly from a section of the Conservative Benches. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, would have us believe that trophy hunting is of great benefit to all, including the animals. I take completely the point about conservation and economics but the view of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that the trophies themselves do not matter at all is breathtaking.
The hunting trophies Bill was in the Conservative 2019 manifesto. Although supporting the Conservative manifesto is not my main aim in life, I and my colleagues do support this Private Member’s Bill and are passionate about protecting endangered wild animals from the revolting practice of being killed for their body parts. In whatever way those opposing this Bill may argue their case, they are unlikely to get support from the Liberal Democrat Benches.

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere: My Lords, after that speech, I should begin by declaring a few non-interests. I am not a hereditary Peer. I am not a landowner unless you count a small garden about half the size of this Chamber on the Hampshire/Berkshire border. I am not a trophy hunter, nor do I oppose the import of all trophies.
However, I speak in support of my noble friend Lord Caithness’s amendment. I go back to where he started, namely with the markhor—that is, Capra falconeri, the screw-horned goat that is the national animal of Pakistan. Last year, I was lucky enough to see the extraordinary landscapes where these animals live in Baltistan, Chitral and Hunza; there are also isolated pockets of them in Afghanistan and India. In fact, they were thought to be extinct in India as recently as the 1990s and were in the most extreme category of UN extinction watch as recently as the end of the last century—that is, until their numbers were revived through the carefully targeted sale of a  very small number of hunting licences, the revenue from which is reserved to local communities. Those communities then have every incentive to preserve habitats and are in effect turned into so many gamekeepers that they ensure that no animals except the elderly, post-reproductive males marked for culling are in danger. The result of that change is that the markhor has rebounded immensely.
It is not the case that trophy hunting is always a tool of conservation. That is why I say that I am not against the whole concept, but I want to speak in favour of the distinction that this amendment makes. Let me give an obvious example from the other side. There is no evidence that the ban on whale hunting has had a detrimental effect. On the contrary, the recovery of whale numbers has been one of the unremarked miracles of the past couple of decades. We have seen an amazing bounce-back in the number of humpbacks and bowheads although, sadly, we have not yet seen the same for blue or gray whales.
Even there, there is a habitat aspect to things. A lot of whales are killed because they swallow fishing gear that has been discarded or get in clashes with vessels. However, I am not going to argue—I do not think that anyone else will—that a hunting ban there is ineffective or that a trophy ban would make a difference but, where we are talking about habitats, it is vital to give local people an incentive to conserve that habitat. I cannot put it better than my noble friend Lord Lucas just did: it is easy for us to be sentimental at a distance about lions, tigers, elephants and so on because we do not have to live next to them. Without any incentive to preserve their numbers, local people will naturally see them as, at the very least, competitors for resources but also as a danger. Without the right incentives, they will have every reason to hunt them to extinction, as I am afraid human populations have done to large mammals on every continent going back to our hunter/gatherer days.
This amendment draws a distinction, giving the Secretary of State a last-ditch power to decide where there would be an unintended consequence for conservation. By the way, I would love to have a general power to stop unintended consequences of legislation. Almost always you get the most unintended consequences from Bills that have been passed in response to some public campaign. People have not thought through all the implications and we hear exactly the arguments that we are hearing tonight, that the public demand this law. If you are presented with, as a general proposition, the idea that we should not kill magnificent animals, then of course, everyone will agree with that—I would, and I hope that everyone would. However, we are looking at ways in which to modify this legislation so as not to have a detrimental effect on conservation.
I do not want to be accused of filibustering, so I will keep this very brief and close by saying that, as I understand it, that is precisely the reason why we exist here as a second Chamber. What function do we have if not to act as a break on the necessary radicalism of the popularly elected House? Being here, we have the privilege to look beyond the headlines and to consider in full the implications and the potential unintended consequences of laws that have been drafted in a knee-jerk way. This legislation is precisely an  example of such lawmaking. Therefore, it seems to me the proper role of this Chamber to approve it and to take out the parts of it that would have the most harmful impacts.

Lord Trees: My Lords, we have heard some very strong speeches, though many have had a rather tenuous connection with any particular amendment. I and others would like to speak to Amendment 34, which is much the most important and seeks to strengthen this Bill, if that might be allowed.

Lord Harlech: I understand the noble Lord’s point about wanting to speak to a specific amendment, but he will have to wait until we get to the group that Amendment 34 is in.

Lord Trees: I am sorry, but there is no grouping, is there?

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: Every amendment is in a group.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: Can I invite the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, to support our amendments tomorrow, since he clearly laid out what this House does? Some amendments tomorrow exactly cover the kinds of issues that he was talking about.
Clearly, the Bill deals with a very passionately felt issue, with strong views on both sides of the argument. That has come across today in Committee and previously. The debate was introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, with his Amendment 1. However, before referring to that, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, for introducing this Private Member’s Bill and for her excellent introduction at Second Reading. We offer our strong support to this Bill. I remind noble Lords that the ban which has been debated has widespread public support and clear cross-party support in Parliament.
There are many amendments in front of us today, but our concern around Amendment 1 is that the effect of the noble Earl’s proposal would be to grant to the Secretary of State alone the power to decide whether a legal prohibition applies, where it is within scope. We do not think that is the correct way to go forward with any legislation. We have said with regard to many Bills that the strong Henry VIII powers being given specifically to Secretaries of State is not how to go forward with legislation. Also, the proposal is not a standard clause retained within conservation or animal welfare legislation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, mentioned. That is specifically why we would not support Amendment 1.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, tried to speak to Amendment 34. I would like to make a point about the groupings. Degrouping every amendment from the proposed government groupings to deliberately frustrate the progress of this Bill is pretty poor and undermines a manifesto commitment of the party that those noble Lords say that they support. They are part of this Government. They sit on the Government Benches. This is pretty poor behaviour on their part, and I want to put that on the record.
Moving to the Bill, I will speak broadly as a lot of issues have been debated even though they are not directly related to the noble Earl’s amendment. We know that France and Australia have banned the import and export of lion-hunting trophies and that in 2016 the Netherlands banned trophy imports of many species.
Some of the main arguments have regarded hunting as supporting conservation and local communities. Evidence has been presented to many of us that trophy hunting can have detrimental effects on wildlife populations, especially when conducted irresponsibly or without proper regulation. Some endangered or threatened species may be targeted by trophy hunters, exacerbating their decline and hindering conservation efforts.
We also know that trophy hunting has a history of mismanagement and that quotas have been based on inadequate data. There has also often been a lack of transparency about the way it takes place. We do not believe that there is sufficient evidence that trophy hunting always contributes to conservation, in the way that a number of noble Lords have implied.
We also believe that the economic benefits generated from trophy hunting have often been overstated. Often, only a small portion of any revenue actually reaches local communities or conservation programmes. If such funds do not reach local communities, they are entirely negligible to the conservation efforts compared with the damage that can be inflicted by the industry through the irreversible loss of key natural resources. Here, I am talking about how trophy hunting can disrupt the delicate balance of ecosystems. It is common for hunters to find the largest or strongest male; removing those particular individuals can bring about social instability within animal populations. It can affect their reproductive success and overall health, and this imbalance can have cascading effects on the ecosystem as a whole. So, although it has been claimed that a small amount of controlled trophy hunting does not harm populations, we are concerned that there is evidence that shows that the opposite is true.
Hunting also directly competes with and undermines sustainable and economically important revenue generation from alternative means. This was debated at length at Second Reading: initiatives such as ecotourism and photographic safaris actually bring in revenue and are alternative ways for these communities to raise funds. They can then input those costs towards conservation and effective anti-poaching work, and they can provide jobs for local people.
I am concerned that not enough attention has been given to how trophy hunting can be used as a cover for illegal poaching. There is some regulation, but not enough to prevent this from happening. We know:
“Opening up even a limited legal trade creates a smokescreen … which is almost impossible to police”.
There have also been calls for licensing exemptions to allow the import of certain trophies, which is similar to a model that I mentioned at Second Reading that was awarded under the United States endangered species Act. Again as I said at Second Reading, it is disproportionate to include this in legislation, because it would bring in extra costs and administrative burdens, as well as creating a risk of judicial review. No Government want to go down that route.
One of the things that I want to put across is my personal view that trophy hunting is cruel. I know that not everybody in the Room agrees, but that is my personal opinion. It is not particularly helping to save our planet. If we are talking about conservation, we should be looking at it as part of the broader way that we conserve and manage our planet and all the challenges that it faces. It is our responsibility to address this, because we are looking at losing animals of great importance to our ecosystem.
Killing animals for sport is unnecessary and cruel. It makes us question our responsibilities towards other living beings on the planet and challenges the notion of whether we should conserve through killing. Society is changing, as well. There is growing pressure on Governments to evaluate their positions on practices such as trophy hunting. I genuinely do not understand why anybody wants to go to a beautiful place with fabulous animals to kill something, chop its head off, bring it home and stick it on the wall. I really do not get it and genuinely do not see why you have to do that for conservation.
As we have heard, the Government committed to banning all trophy imports: it was a manifesto commitment. While we applaud and salute the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, for the enormous amount of work that she has done on this, it is a great pity that the Government failed to bring this forward as a government Bill, as expected. They committed to banning trophy hunting and I hope they will still look to do that, because it is time that the UK banned this awful practice.

Baroness Fookes: My Lords, we have already spent a considerable time on this first amendment. I take what I think is a minority view about the purpose of Committee: it is to look, in detail, at amendments to improve a Bill or reject various parts of it, as the case may be. Speeches should be closely argued on the amendment concerned, or the amendments if they are grouped, and they should be concise. The time spent on this amendment has been miniscule in comparison with the time spent on what were, in effect, Second Reading speeches. I am sorry, but I deplore that as a Committee issue.
I turn then to the actual amendment. It gives the Secretary of State the requirement, not just once but each year, to make
“a statement in writing to the effect that, in the Secretary of State’s view, its operation will not cause unintended and perverse consequences for wildlife conservation”.
I once chaired the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and I was always very wary of giving the Government, Secretaries of State or anybody else unfettered discretion to do things. This seems to me to fall into that category, because there is not even a whiff of parliamentary scrutiny. For that reason, I am very much opposed to this and, as I wish to be concise, I will sit down and leave the Minister to speak.

Lord Benyon: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for tabling and moving this amendment, and the other Peers who have proposed amendments. However, I must say that the Government are disappointed that the House has  not thus far been able to agree a way forward for this important legislation. My experience is that there is always a deal to be done, and I hope we may yet find some way forward. I was interested to hear the words of the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, whose experience in these matters is hugely valued. I will take up any opportunity to find a way forward.

Lord Mancroft: I thank my noble friend for giving way; I am most grateful. I too would like to have found a way forward, which is why I made clear what my proposal was on 16 June at Second Reading. I am very sad that my noble friend Lady Fookes has declined to discuss it with me. I asked on three occasions, but she felt she could not—that is her right, of course. I also rather regret that over two and a half months, the first squeak I heard out of the Government was last week, and no proposal or ability to find common ground was offered. The only direct approach I had was yesterday, 24 hours before Committee. That is no way to find agreement; nevertheless, my door is open and I look forward to agreement, because most of my noble friends here do not wish to kill this Bill. We would like to see a good Bill on the statute book.

Lord Benyon: I thank my noble friend and understand the point he makes. Like other noble Lords, I commend my noble friend Lady Fookes for her commitment to this Bill and her hard work to support it.
I shall set out the Government’s position on the Bill and speak to the issues raised by a number of amendments. First, as noble Lords will know, the Bill before us would deliver our manifesto commitment to ban the import of hunting trophies from endangered animals. I recognise that this is a controversial proposal in this House, and I accept that there is a range of views and evidence on trophy hunting, including that it can be beneficial in conservation terms and for local livelihoods if well managed. The Government’s position, having listened to a number of different sides and gone through all the options, is that an import ban is the best way forward. An import ban would address the public’s concern about imports of hunting trophies, delivering a policy that is clear, comprehensive and practical to implement and enforce.
This is why we have a problem with the so-called “smart ban” amendments put forward, such as Amendment 14, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness; Amendment 19A, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness; Amendment 34, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft; Amendment 39, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas; Amendment 40, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Robathan; and Amendment 41, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Bellingham and Lord Roborough. What is being proposed in those amendments is effectively a licensing system based on criteria about conservation impact or wildlife management practices and regulations. That is, broadly speaking, what we already have in place. The effect of these amendments would be to negate the purpose of the Bill.
There are a great number of amendments which deal with items in scope of the ban, concerning changes to the definition of a hunting trophy or the species, items or conditions under which a hunting trophy would be subject to the ban. This includes Amendments 3  to 7, 9, 10, 12, 15 to 18, 20 to 28, 31 to 33 and 35 to 38, in the names of the noble Earls, Lord Leicester and Lord Caithness, the noble Lords, Lord Lucas, Lord Hamilton, Lord Swire, Lord Robathan, Lord Reay, Lord Howard of Rising and Lord Roborough, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard.
The definition of a hunting trophy used in the Bill, in Clause 1, is consistent with the definition agreed by CITES and is already used by our authorities for CITES controls. Our current controls would continue for imports that are not hunting trophies. There is already provision in the Bill for consideration of imports for scientific or educational purposes, for example for the import of items for personal use that were not obtained through hunting. The scope of species is clear and comprehensive. Annexes A and B of our wildlife trade regulations implement appendices 1 and 2 of CITES in Great Britain. They cover species at risk from international trade, including elephants, giraffes, rhinos, big cats, bears, primates and hippos.
In future, the import ban would apply to any species newly listed or uplisted to the annexes. I say to my noble friend Lord Swire, who was generous in his words for me, that this Government in no way seek to dictate to other countries—the range states of this species—how they wish to manage wildlife. By covering all animal species in annexes A and B, we are closing down the possibility of permitting an import of a hunting trophy from these species into Great Britain, but if a species is not trophy hunted, legal trade would not be affected by this Bill.
A number of amendments relate to the advisory board: Amendments 2 and 42 to 58, in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the noble Lords, Lord Swire, Lord Lucas, Lord Mancroft, Lord Reay, Lord Bellingham and Lord Roborough, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. Among these are amendments to expand the role of the advisory board or add to the requirements regarding appointments or administration. The advisory board, as noble Lords know, was added in the Commons and it would ensure that the Secretary of State has a clear route to commission expert advice on this issue once the legislation is in force. As drafted, the clause affords the Secretary of State flexibility in commissioning advice, and the design of the board is proportionate and efficient. This will ensure that the advisory board is a way for the Government to get the right advice, rather than establishing a more complicated or far-reaching body than is required.
A number of amendments are concerned with the implementation or enforcement of this legislation or its legal clarity, including Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and Amendments 8, 11, 13, 19, 29, 30, 59, 60, 61 and 62 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Robathan, Lord Lucas, Lord Mancroft and Lord Reay, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester.
If I could just address the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Weir, I entirely understand the point he makes, but under the Windsor Framework, EU rules on trade in endangered species, as he says, continue to apply in Northern Ireland. It is a point worthy of note  that strict controls on hunting trophy imports are already in place in Northern Ireland and no permits for importing hunting trophies have been issued since 2018.
I can assure the Committee that we have carefully considered how an import ban would work, and our approach builds on our current CITES controls. We have confidence in these controls, so I am confident that the Bill as drafted can be enforced efficiently and effectively.
Amendment 1, put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is, I suggest, not necessary. The Government already have a full range of tools to keep legislation under review and repeal that which is not fit for purpose. This amendment would undermine the implementation of the import ban by compelling a continual review process.
In summary, the Government are confident in the approach and drafting of the Bill before us. For that reason, I will not be supporting Amendment 1, nor any of the amendments tabled. I hope I can persuade the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, to withdraw this amendment.

Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I would like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and I thank the many noble Lords for their support for my amendment.
I was particularly interested in the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, because I do not think that either of them actually listened to what I said. They came with pre-prepared speeches—the usual claptrap they produce when it comes to trophy hunting. I mentioned all the disadvantages of trophy hunting and said that I was trying to improve the conservation of animals. If the noble Lord does not like my examples, well, I am sorry, but at least he has not challenged the efficacy of them. I think that would have been a more helpful and constructive approach than just spieling out the usual generalisations, which we have become use to accepting from the proponents of the Bill.
My noble friend Lady Fookes gave one of the most remarkable replies from a sponsor of a Bill that I have ever heard in over 50 years in this House. She did not comment at all on any of the information that I gave, which contradicted a lot of what she said at Second Reading in generalisations. I gave specific examples which she has not contradicted—so I presume that she accepts them but does not like them.

Baroness Fookes: May I intervene? I did not deal with any of those issues because I regarded them as a Second Reading speech. I am not going to answer that kind of thing. I hope the noble Earl will not take it that I agree with everything he said, because I do not. I was trying to keep to what I believe is the purpose of a Committee stage.

Earl of Caithness: I think we all fully accept that my noble friend will not meet anybody to discuss this Bill and will not discuss it. That is very clear.
I respect the position of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, who said that it is cruel to kill any animal. I do not agree with her, but I respect her position. I wonder whether she might just consider the very fine deer herds in this country, such as in Richmond Park. They are only fine deer herds because of culling and because beasts are shot and taken out in  order to continue and improve the herd. If we did not have that, we would not have the very fine deer herds we are privileged to have in this country.
My noble friend Lord Benyon said he was disappointed that no compromise had yet been found. There is a compromise. The Government have ignored the compromise and the advice of the JNCC, which is the specialist advisory body. There is no need for an advisory board. If the Government would look again at my noble friend Lord Mancroft’s amendment as a suitable vehicle to get the benefits for conservation and for local people that can be achieved, there would be a sensible way forward. Given the support I have had, I would like to test the opinion of the Committee.
Ayes 30, Noes 39.

Amendment 1 disagreed.

Amendment 2

The Earl of Caithness: Moved by The Earl of Caithness
2: Clause 1, page 1, line 2, at beginning insert “Subject to section 4,”

Earl of Caithness: My Lords, this is a very simple amendment. It makes Clause 1 subject to Clause 4, which relates to the advisory committee, which we will come on to discuss in some detail. I think it is a very flawed clause of the Bill, which needs amendment. The point of this amendment is simply to make certain that the advice will be understood and taken on board by the Government when it comes to the implementation of Clause 1 of the Bill.
It is very depressing that the Government have turned their back on and totally ignored the information from their advisory body, the JNCC. It has set a bad precedent. It has undermined the JNCC and has reduced the efficacy of the Government’s work on conservation abroad. It is a very damaging decision that the Secretary of State has taken, against normal precedent. I hope therefore that, by my simple amendment, at least the consideration of the advisory board will be taken a little more seriously by the Government than they are taking advice at the moment. I beg to move.

Lord Benyon: My Lords, I have already set out the Government’s position on this matter in my response to an earlier group. I have no further comments to make, and I will not be supporting this amendment. I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw it.

Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for all the support around the Committee I have received on that one. In view of the brief but factual reply from my noble friend the Minister, I am happy to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Amendment 3

The Earl of Leicester: Moved by The Earl of Leicester
3: Clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out “an” and insert “a wild”

Earl of Leicester: My Lords, I apologise that I was unable to attend Second Reading. I was very keen to do so but unavoidably had to attend an important meeting at home. I refer to my interests as set out in the register. That includes my family’s management of Holkham National Nature Reserve, one of the most prolific in terms of conservation success in the land. I also stalk red deer in Scotland but have never hunted in other parts of the world.
This Bill will provide the legislative framework for understanding when someone commits a criminal offence. Therefore, in order to be fair and to avoid multiple legal challenges, clarifications around the definition of animals impacted by the Bill and the hunter himself or herself are required. Without clarity around these definitions, the Bill in its current form raises challenges for import and export agents preparing documentation relating to the importation of a hunting trophy into the UK and for Border Force officials tasked with enforcing the new legislation.
The purpose of my amendment is to highlight the extent to which the Bill has expanded in scope from the original manifesto commitment, which addressed endangered species—perhaps 10, in the recent UK  context—to over 6,200 species, and the extent to which this highly disproportionate approach will create a far greater administrative burden than seems necessary. Amendment 3 would ensure that the new words “a wild” precede “animal”.
The Bill is clearly meant to be about conservation. That much has been made clear by the Government, who have stated that it was to be enacted in order to protect the world’s threatened species. If the Bill is about conservation, then it should be about wild animals, as the hunting of domestic, non-wild or captive animals is not a conservation concern. Such a ban does not, therefore, advance the intention of the Bill. This is not a small matter. There are many cases where animals are killed in situations which would not be classed as wild. The killing of tigers in South Africa is one such example. While very many of us would find that morally repugnant, it is clear that this Bill is about conservation and that the killing of a tiger in South Africa has no detrimental impact on wild tiger conservation in Asia.
If this is not about conservation and the killing of wild animals but more about welfare, then we should presumably take this time to address the killing of livestock in this country. It is worth remembering that, every year in the UK, approximately 2.6 million cattle, 10 million pigs, 14.5 million sheep and lambs, 80 million fish and 950 million birds are slaughtered for human consumption. Given that people can live perfectly well without meat, and plenty do, it is hard to argue that that kind of killing is not done only for the pleasure of people eating meat, but it clearly dwarfs by many orders of magnitude the average of 90 to 115 wild animals which are imported annually to the UK. The Bill, then, is clearly meant to be about conservation and therefore wild, rather than non-wild, animals.
Although it should be about conservation, in reality it can be tricky to find what is actually wild and what is not. We can see this complexity in our own wildlife legislation. Mark Avery has discussed this matter with regard to pheasants, which, for example, are determined as livestock when bred in captivity but, as soon as they are released, are deemed to be wild. This kind of complexity also applies to the kind of animals we see discussed all the time in the trophy hunting debate. Lions, for example, are one of the most high-profile species mentioned, especially since the killing of Cecil the lion. However, when is a lion a wild lion?
In South Africa, for example, there is a complex scenario where lions may be captive, managed or wild. According to credible organisations such as Panthera, South Africa has between 2,700 and 3,200 wild and managed lions, split roughly 50/50. The wild animals live in national parks such as the Kruger National Park; managed lions inhabit private reserves such as Phinda and Tswalu, and are managed in the name of keeping the gene pool diverse. Others are captive; the South African Predator Association keeps track of captive lions and captive breeding facilities, but not everyone who breeds lions in South Africa needs to be a member, and not everyone who is provides statistics. According to an article in National Geographic, the 2015 estimate was of around 7,000 lions in captivity.
Ideally, the animals covered by this Bill should also be wild animals which are native to that country. There are many cases where exotic animals cause immense concern in terms of their impact on nature biodiversity, particularly in Australia. One trophy-hunted non-native species in Australia is the camel, which needs to have its population controlled after feral populations were established by explorers and colonisers. Another example is the tiger, as I mentioned before. Although prohibited in a country in which tigers naturally occur, tiger hunting does happen in South Africa. Between 2002 and 2011, 17 tiger trophies were exported from South Africa—although, mercifully, none to the UK.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, if Amendment 3 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 4 or 5 for reasons of pre-emption.

Lord Bellingham: My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment, which makes a great deal of sense. I think it is also just worth pointing out that he touched on a pertinent point: everyone is concerned about endangered animals. A lot of people feel strongly about animals in the wild, but what we have heard this evening, and what is obviously apparent, is that not all of these animals are wild. There are canned lions and the shooting of animals in enclosures. When I researched this, I was surprised that animals can be shot on the internet: you go online, pay your subscription—whatever it is—and then line up the crosswires on your computer to shoot an animal in an enclosure. I think most of us find that pretty distasteful and unnecessary, which is why there is a distinction between animals kept in artificial conditions and those that are completely wild. So I absolutely agree with what my noble friend said.
This goes to the essence of one of the points that many of us have made: the Bill is well intentioned. I have to say that I really resent some of the comments made this evening about how people on this side of the House—I am not a hereditary Peer, by the way—somehow want to sabotage the Bill. We do not. Surely the essence of any Committee stage is to improve a Bill. So, although some complain about the number of amendments—at the last count, it was over 60—and say that they are somehow unhelpful to the Government, egregious and wrong, I argue that this is actually the Chamber at its very best, trying to improve a Bill. It went through the other place very quickly, without any amendments, and it came here. We had a substantial debate on it, and a huge amount of information came our way over the summer and the latter part of the spring, from experts around the world, to help us to improve it. Surely that is the House taking this matter seriously. My noble friend’s amendment is one of many small but technical amendments. I really do find it hard to accept the idea that this is an all-male group of refuseniks living in a colonial world that is somehow trying to turn the clock back. We are actually acting in the best spirit of this House. We need time to get Bills like this right, and it may require a lot of technical amendments to be looked at, discussed and voted on.
It is incredibly important that we listen to the experts, who have not only commented on the generality of the Bill but picked up on some of the points regarding animals that may be wild or tame—that obviously goes to the core of my noble friend’s specific amendment. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee, which was mentioned, gave us evidence, but there are many other bodies, which I will come to at a later stage of the Bill. It is also worth mentioning that, when there is so much consensus among international bodies, we have to stop and take note. The International Union for Conservation of Nature made a strong case for the conservation arguments and highlighted the point about wild animals, as opposed to those kept in captivity. The Government have referred to that organisation in a favourable light on other occasions, but now they appear to be ignoring it.
There are other bodies as well. There is the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the IUCN, which is a global conservation authority. What is interesting about the advice that it has given your Lordships’ House and the Minister and the Government is that it is obviously not particularly comfortable in supporting trophy hunting. In fact, I would say that it is probably instinctively against it. But it is pragmatic. What it said was that trophy hunting was a possible threat to nine of the 6,200 species covered by the Bill, whereas it offers a very clear benefit to 25% of the wild species to which the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, referred.
Then you have the specific Governments who have given evidence to Members of this House and put arguments and sent letters to them, including Botswana’s Minister for the Environment and Conservation, who made it very clear that the
“importation ban of legally harvested wildlife trophies will negatively impact wildlife authorities, including Professional Hunting Associations and Community-Based Support Organizations”
and conservation bodies. What is relevant to this is that, recently, representatives of the community-run conservation areas in the four African countries that make up the Kavango-Zambezi trans-frontier conservation area—the so-called KAZA—stated that the Bill would have a “highly detrimental effect” on the protection of wildlife and the way of life of these communities. The way of life of the communities is something that is highly relevant to this specific amendment, which is why I support the noble Earl in his amendment.

Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I want to make a comment about this and ask a question of my noble friend on the Front Bench. The noble Earl is quite right that we should differentiate. This is a conservation Bill and we do not conserve domestic animals—we conserve wild animals. So the argument that they should be wild is entirely correct.
There is a technical point that I should know the answer to and do not, so I shall ask my noble friend on the Front Bench. We in this country have different laws for wild and domestic animals; we do not treat our wildlife in the same way as we treat our domestic animals, for very good and sensible reasons. The law relating to them is different. But there is a reference to a wild animal that is “captive”—although I cannot remember the right word. I apologise to your Lordships, because I should remember it, but I have forgotten this  legislation, which I used to know very well. There is a definition of a wild animal that is enclosed, or captive, or whatever it is—and when it becomes enclosed or captive, domestic welfare law applies. It is a different law. What I do not know, and I ask my noble friend, is whether that law applies abroad, under English law. If it did, canned lions in Africa would be subject to domestic law, because they would be captive wild animals, and the whole thing would apply completely differently. I do not think that they are really wild animals.
There is a difference between domestic and managed wild animals. We do not have any managed wild animals in this country, so it would not apply to us. I am not clear, but there are differences here and the law would apply differently if UK law were applied to, for example, canned lions in Africa. I am just not clear what the answer to that question is, and it would be helpful to know it.

Baroness Fookes: For the record, I do not like this amendment and am opposed to it, as it restricts the scope far too much.

Lord Mancroft: Does that mean that my noble friend thinks that we should have trophy laws for domestic animals?

Lord Benyon: My Lords, I do not wish to add to what I said earlier, but my noble friend has asked me something specifically. There are considerable concerns about the hunting of captive bred animals, including what is termed “canned hunting”. Such trophies should not be exempt from the import ban. The concept of what most of us imagine canned hunting to be is one that excites all our wrath and indignation about a practice that, in risk terms, is like shooting a cow in a field. I entirely understand, and I think that everybody is keen to find a way in which to differentiate it.
We could find ourselves dancing on the head of a legal pin here. What is an enclosure? There could be a small enclosure the size of this room, which would of course be ridiculous; there are also hunting concessions that are fenced in and, effectively, a managed population of animals. I do not want to get into that debate or make legislation that would create circumstances in which a court would be sought to adjudicate that legal definition. Therefore, I cannot recommend that this Committee supports this amendment, and respectfully urge the noble Earl to withdraw it.

Earl of Leicester: My Lords, I thank those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, who highlighted many examples around the world, and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who highlighted the importance of differentiating between wild and captive animals. However, like my noble friend Lord Caithness, I will not seek to divide the Committee on this issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 3 withdrawn.

Amendment 4

Lord Lucas: Moved by Lord Lucas
4: Clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out “an animal” and insert “a species classed as threatened on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List”

Lord Lucas: My Lords, in search of this rather elusive rapprochement which my noble friend on the Front Bench referred to, I suggest that we bring the scope of this Bill closer to what was in our manifesto —endangered species—broadening it slightly to “threatened” species, since that was mentioned when this Private Member’s Bill was launched. These definitions belong to the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s red list, which has nine categories, with “threatened”, “endangered” and “critically endangered” being the top three.
If we covered these species only, we would fulfil what we said we would do in our manifesto, would do what the proposer of this Bill said in another place that it was intended to do, and would avoid the huge burden of it covering the enormous variety of species that it does, with the administrative difficulties that would result. As a way forward, to fulfil our commitments and produce something effective and sensible, I urge this amendment on my noble friend. I beg to move.

Lord Bellingham: My Lords, I compliment my noble friend on his amendment, which has the great benefit of substantial simplicity and great logic behind it. I urge the Minister to look at it. This may be the compromise that we are looking for and could come back to on Report.
Everyone agrees that we are very concerned about endangered species; no one can say for one moment that they are not. However, under the very wide drafting of this Bill, less than 4% of the species it covers are trophy hunted anywhere in the world. I do not know whether noble Lords knew that. Only 1% of species covered by it have been imported to the UK since 2000. Some 79% of hunting trophies are from species that are stable, increasing and abundant, which is quite a compelling figure.
As I pointed out earlier, on average two trophies of wild lions and 115 trophies in all are imported into the UK every year. We are talking about a very specialist, niche issue here, yet we have all those unintended consequences, which I shall talk about at a later stage—maybe if my noble friend Lord Mancroft’s amendment is reached later this evening or on another occasion, and certainly on Report.
One must look in the round at what everyone is trying to achieve and what the Conservative manifesto set out to achieve. My noble friend is quite right that the manifesto said:
“We will … ban imports from trophy hunting of endangered species”—
the emphasis being on endangered species. That is what we signed up to. What we did not sign up to was something that went much wider, and that is exactly why the Bill needs to be improved.
I urge the Minister not to reject this amendment out of hand. Maybe he could say to my noble friend, who has already made two intelligent, well-balanced and well-received interventions this evening—he is to be applauded for that—that he will take this amendment away and look at it, because obviously, the way things are going, Committee on the Bill has some way to run, and then we have Report as well. We can come back on Report.
I certainly remember from my time as a Minister that there were nights in Committee when we would go through Bills at great length and suddenly inspiration would strike and a gem would come up from a parliamentarian, such as we have seen from my noble friend. I think the Minister should take the amendment away, look at it and come back on Report. I certainly support my noble friend.

Lord Moore of Etchingham: My Lords, I shall just add to that, supporting the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, and the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, because it helps to answer an important point that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised earlier, which is that the convention in this House is that we try to implement, or not to impede, manifesto commitments. What is clear about the Bill as it is drafted, unamended, is that it is not really expressing the manifesto commitment; it is much more confused and goes much wider. What we are getting here, as we try to amend it, is something closer to the original intentions.

Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I think that is a very helpful intervention. There are some noble Lords who think this is the manifesto commitment; I do not think it is. This goes significantly wider than the manifesto commitment. More than that, I have sat and watched lots of manifesto commitments go round and round over the years and I have very rarely seen one that went through in pure form. One of the arts of politics is compromise: if you want to get your business, you make compromises. The Government do that every day in different areas, and so they should—that is how it works. This is an area in which we could make that compromise.
I am looking at the lists. There are, I think 6,200 species that we are banning from bringing in as trophies, and it is important to remind ourselves of the trophies, because we have probably not seen many of them on the walls. I have seen a few trophies, but I have never seen 2,076 corals on a wall. I have seen some fish, but I do not know that I have ever seen any cartilaginous fish, but there are 154 of them on the list—we are banning those, apparently. I think it is a sensible move to ban the trophy hunting of poison dart frogs—that is something we should have done years ago and I cannot imagine why we have not. Here we are, getting round to it, and there are quite a few other things on this list.
To tell the honest truth, the words “sledgehammer” and “nut” come to mind. Look at these creatures. There is an echidna here—I am not sure quite what it is, but it is on the list. We have banned that, and, my goodness, that is a good day’s work, is it not? Kangaroos, wallabies and possums are on the list. Frankly, this list of 6,200 is completely absurd and ridiculous; we should reduce it to the creatures that are genuinely likely to become trophies and make it more reasonable. After all, the poor customs people who are meant to be dealing with this have not got a hope. There are 975 reptiles on it and—goodness me, that is lucky—we have banned 96 molluscs. I have had sleepless nights over mollusc hunting.
I agree that this list is a bit absurd. We should try to reduce it. It is an area where we can compromise without causing any concerns, and I hope your Lordships will look at this very seriously.

Baroness Fookes: My Lords, your Lordships will probably not be surprised that I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Mancroft on this. I prefer the fact that there is a wider scope with the wildlife trade regulations annexes A and B. If they do not cause a problem, nobody will worry about that. I was amused by my noble friend Lord Mancroft and his molluscs, but I really do not think it is of any significance whatever. However, what I do notice is that as we go through the various amendments, a little bit here and a little bit there is chipped away, and if they were all accepted, we would see something very different indeed. Therefore, I stand by the Bill as it stands.

Lord Benyon: My Lords, I set out earlier my thoughts on these amendments. My noble friend Lord Lucas is a very intelligent and assiduous parliamentarian and raises an important point. But I suggest that this amendment is not necessary, because the species in scope are provided for in Clause 2. Notwithstanding what my noble friend Lord Mancroft says, that is for the simplicity of the functioning of the Bill, so I hope I can persuade my noble friend Lord Lucas to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Bellingham: I will just add on that last point: surely we should stick to the manifesto commitment, which is on endangered species. That is what we said in the manifesto. Maybe the Minister could stand up again and answer that point. Widening it in this way in Clause 2 to the 6,200 species goes far wider than what we committed to in 2019.

Earl of Caithness: My Lords, to follow that up, it seems strange that my noble friend the Minister lamented that there was not a compromise on the Bill—that was when he started his reply to me on my first amendment. The Bill as presented before us is much wider than the manifesto commitment. Surely this would be an area in which a sensible compromise, achieving the aims of those of us who wish to improve the conservation of animals throughout the world and what the Government seek to do, is a possibility. If my noble friend was serious in saying that he laments the lack of a compromise, he ought to tell us where he thinks a compromise might be.

Lord Benyon: My Lords, one of the reasons I enjoy being in this House is that we have to achieve compromises in so many things. I try to work across the House to try to get half a loaf rather than no loaf at all. Here we are trying to achieve something that is workable. Annexes A and B of our wildlife trade regulations implement appendices 1 and 2 of CITES in Great Britain. They cover species at risk from international trade, listing nearly 6,000 species, as has been mentioned. These include elephants, giraffes, rhinos, big cats, bears, primates and hippos. By covering all animal species in annexes A and B of the wildlife trade regulations, we are removing any possibility of  permitting the import of a hunting trophy from these species into Great Britain. Estimates of the number of species that are trophy hunted vary, but they are in the hundreds rather than the thousands. The Bill would apply to hunting trophies from all annexe A and B species. That is clear and comprehensive, avoiding confusion about what is or is not covered. Current rules on importing hunting trophies similarly apply to all annexe A and B species.

Earl of Caithness: I wonder whether my noble friend would give consideration to answering the question I put to him.

Lord Benyon: We are seeking to implement the manifesto commitment.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am naturally disappointed in that, but I shall not give up during the course of rest of this Committee trying to find other ways in which we might reach a compromise and a way forward.
I reassure my noble friend Lady Fookes that I view these amendments as alternatives—different ways of dealing with what I regard as a Bill that has gone too far. I do not wish it to die a death by a thousand cuts; I wish it to flourish as an effective and important piece of legislation. I think it needs improving but, given the Minister’s response, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment 4 withdrawn.

Amendment 5

Lord Robathan: Moved by Lord Robathan
5: Clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out “an animal to which this Act applies” and insert “a species classed as threatened on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List and where that list records trophy hunting as a threat to that species”

Lord Robathan: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name. I do not wish to repeat everything that has been said before; it is getting late, and I am sure many people, like me, would rather go home. But I will say a few general points about this. Unfortunately, because of a medical appointment, I could not speak properly at Second Reading. I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that I find it strange that men are not allowed to have an opinion on this. I note that there are six women on the Opposition Benches, against one man. Does that mean that their opinions carry more weight than that of men? I hope not; I was quite keen on equality rather than discrimination. I am just saying, as the noble Baroness has intervened from a sedentary position, that on the Opposition Benches there is just one man.

Lord Teverson: I just intervene to say that the noble Lord is the opposition; we are the other side, as far as I can see, this evening—so I think the nomenclature is wrong.

Lord Robathan: This is a Private Member’s Bill, not a government Bill, apparently, and on the Opposition Benches we have five to one—sorry, six to one; maths is not necessarily my strong point.

Lord Mancroft: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. The noble Lord opposite makes a very interesting point. What the Government are doing today is passing socialist legislation, which is an odd thing for a Conservative Government to be doing. It is supported entirely on the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches and clearly has very little support on our Benches. It is an odd thing for the Government to do. I dare say that if there was ever a day when the parties on the other side got into government—I think it is very unlikely—I suppose they would pass right-wing legislation, but I do not know.

Lord Robathan: Anyway, to go back to the matter in hand, I would say that, when I and several other noble Lords here met a delegation from countries from sub-Saharan Africa, as I recall, there were two female African Ministers who came to talk to us—so it is not purely men who take a view on this.

Lord Swire: Just for clarification, when these Ministers and MPs took all the trouble to come from Africa to put their point over, is my noble friend aware of how many of those who support the Bill actually had the politeness to meet them?

Lord Robathan: Yes, I am indeed aware: none. Which was a pity, and it was especially a pity that my noble friend Lady Fookes did not come to hear what had to be said by people who actually know a great deal about the issue because they live with it.
I said I would make some general points because I was unable to speak properly on Second Reading. I have a farm in Leicestershire. I farm for conservation, in my opinion—conservation and subsidy, but the latter is not doing so well at the moment. It is covered in birds and hares. I also shoot, but I only shoot birds and animals that I can eat. I certainly do not want to shoot trophies, such as described by the proponents of the Bill; indeed, I find it rather distasteful. But that is not really the point.
My first point is that this Bill is neo-colonialist. I find it extraordinary that the left backs it, because we are trying to tell independent countries in Africa and elsewhere how wicked their policies are. The second point is that we are ignoring the wishes of these countries, especially those from sub-Saharan Africa. To suggest that we replicate the money that is made from trophy hunting with overseas development assistance is basically treating Africans—nations and others—as supplicants. It is an arrogant zeal that pushes this forward. We are treating them as people who are unable to manage their own wildlife, or indeed their economies, without us telling them what to do.
As we have just heard, this is a terrible Bill in so many ways. It is absurd. I do not think that anybody has ever hunted a mollusc as a trophy, but there it is. It is almost unenforceable and is pretty unintelligible. My noble friend the Minister, for whom I surprisingly  have great respect, talked about dancing on a legal pin. Well, should the Bill come to a court—I hope that it never does—there will certainly be the possibility of dancing on legal pins here.

Lord Bellingham: I just want to clarify one matter. I actually feel quite strongly that we need to improve this Bill. Therefore, we need to see it on Report. Earlier, the Minister said something really significant; it was the first time that I have heard the Government say that they want a compromise. He said that he does not want the Bill in its current form but wants an improvement to it. We are teasing out different possibilities. I certainly disagree with him on that point, but we want this Bill to go through Committee and on to Report—just as an improved Bill that is, as the Minister said, fit for purpose, serves the manifesto promise that we made and, crucially, answers the very real questions on the submission of those five or six African countries.

Lord Robathan: I am grateful to my noble friend because I will come on to a compromise in a minute.
This Bill is of course a manifesto commitment left over from 2019. It was probably put in, rather surprisingly, by a former Prime Minister to placate somebody close to him. As somebody who was a Member of the House of Commons for 23 years, I can promise those who talk about 86%—or whatever it is—of people asked about trophy hunting not approving of it that this is not something that exercises most people on the streets of London, Manchester Blaby or Leeds. Furthermore, the Bill ignores the advice of the Government’s own body, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
I go back to what my noble friend just raised. Let us have a compromise that promotes conservation—I am absolutely a conservationist on my farm—fulfils the manifesto commitment to ban the importation of endangered species and listens to the Africans and others who oppose this Bill. Let us not listen to the arrogant zeal of activists.
I turn to the specific amendment. It goes to the heart of the issue, which is conservation, and asks us to listen to the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s red list, which concerns species that are seen as threatened by trophy hunting—if they are. The Minister just mentioned CITES. Let us stick with that, then; that would be something useful, although I do not think that you are allowed to trade in anything that is on a CITES list anyway. Let us stick conservation at the heart of this Bill, not the sort of patronising, arrogant zeal that we see from a lot of people on this. I beg to move.

Lord Roborough: My Lords, I rise to speak in support of my noble friend Lord Robathan’s Amendment 5. I declare an interest, as stated in the register, as a partner in a sporting estate in Scotland.
I note my noble friend the Minister’s earlier words. However, I echo other noble friends in the Chamber: this is a critical amendment that would return the Bill  closer to the original Conservative Party manifesto commitment and ban imports from the trophy hunting of endangered animals. When Henry Smith proposed this Private Member’s Bill, he stated:
“The world’s wildlife faces an extinction emergency of extraordinary proportions. We have to do everything we can to support conservation”.
We now understand that we all support that, but I am familiar with the high importance of hunting, which can involve taking trophies in financing conservation efforts and in the protection and restoration of habitats and ecologies that support the species being hunted.
In this country, it is of limited national economic benefits, but it can make a material impact at a local level in relatively disadvantaged communities. When we look overseas—to countries in Asia and Africa, for example—the impact is much greater. Revenues from hunting can be the key financial support for conservation efforts. I understand that hunting may be distasteful to many, but conservation efforts funded by that hunting are universally welcomed. What right do we in this rich country have to cut off that funding and send a signal to the rest of the world that they should do likewise? Why should we make decisions that put out of work people around the world whose interests are also best served in ensuring a surplus of these species, potentially turning hunters into poachers?
The globally accepted definitive authority on threatened species is the IUCN red list. This classifies species into nine categories according to their level of endangerment, from “not evaluated” to “extinct”. The amendment identifies “threatened”, which incorporates “critically endangered” and “vulnerable”. That is one more than the manifesto commitment. Dr Challender of Oxford University, and colleagues, showed that less than a quarter of the 73 CITES-listed mammal species that have been imported as hunting trophies since 2000 fall into the “threatened” definition and 60% are of “least concern”. The same work showed that nearly 80% of imports were from countries where populations of the hunted species were stable, increasing or abundant.
The amendment brings in the concept of trophy hunting itself as a threat to the species being hunted. Analysis of the red list by Challender, Dickman, Roe and Hart showed that
“legal hunting for trophies is not a major threat”
to any of the species imported to the UK as trophies since 2000. In fact, the analysis concludes that trophy hunting is not listed as a threat to the survival of any species. The positive impact of hunting on threatened species is well illustrated by Michael ‘t Sas-Rolfes and Dr Emslie in their article in the Conversation:
“South Africa and Namibia are the two countries with the most African rhinos. In 1970, before legal hunting was introduced, they jointly held about 1,950 white rhinos … That number had risen to about 16,600 by 2017 … the biological and socio-economic benefits generated by these hunts … can boost conservation performance through enhanced population growth and funding”.
Returning to the Challender analysis, only 10 endangered species have been imported to the UK as hunting trophies since 2000, including ranched animals, which would not have been bred without hunting as an objective. Therefore, I question why this Bill is identifying over 6,200 species. How will our Border Force cope with this burden of determining which species or subspecies  an animal part may be from and whether it is a trophy, has been hunted, or where the importer lives? How much simpler and more targeted to rely on IUCN red list designations.
This is an important amendment, returning the Bill to its original intention and supporting conservation efforts globally. Further to comments on earlier groups, these amendments, and this one in particular, are carefully designed to turn a damaging, emotionally driven Bill into legislation which genuinely will support conservation.

Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I support this amendment. We have been told that the motivations behind this Bill are the manifesto commitment and public opinion. I am not particularly enthusiastic about either of those things, but there is no doubt that this amendment does return the Bill to the manifesto commitment that was given. If that is what the Government are hanging their hat on, as they appear increasingly to have done during the summer, then they should accept this amendment. If they say, “Well, we can’t do that because that will return the Bill to the House of Commons”, well, they have had the timetable for this Bill, as they have for any Bill, in their gift throughout, so it is their fault and not ours that we are debating it at this late hour.
A point was raised earlier about public opinion. We have had “public opinion” thrown at us—that 80% or 90% of people support this. The reality is that the people support it because they think it is a conservation measure. When it is explained to them—as it has been by the IUCN, with its rather more nuanced and in-depth research into public opinion—that actually, it does not help conservation, less than 50% support it. The number goes right down.
The polls that put it up at 80% or 90% are the usual incredibly biased animal rights polls, which we have seen for 20 or 30 years in this country. They say, “Do you want to rip a small animal to shreds and enjoy every minute of it, relishing in its blood?” You get 99% on that one; if you have these sorts of ridiculous questions, of course you do. The reality is that we should not and must not run our country by public opinion poll.

Lord Robathan: I was in the House of Commons for 23 years. I do not know if I achieved anything useful; I did try. During those 23 years, I got an enormous amount of correspondence—letters and latterly emails. To my certain knowledge, I did not get one letter, email or even telephone call worrying about hunting trophies.

Lord Bellingham: I got one actually, over more than 23 years.

Lord Robathan: You got one, but you were there for longer than I was.

Lord Mancroft: Well, it was lovely to have that domestic entertainment, but the point I was trying to make is that we should not be basing serious legislation on rather dubious public opinion polls. In-depth research is useful, but the ballot box is the real thing that we do. I do not think we should be doing this on public opinion polls, but we have an  opportunity to take the Bill back to the original manifesto commitment, if that is what everybody is so obsessed about.
I notice, however, that most manifestos have God knows how many items in them which nobody takes any notice of at all. They discard them at will when they are not interested in them, then grab them and hang their hats on them when they think they are very important. I must admit that my noble friend Lord Robathan is absolutely right, in that I do not see queues of people going around Parliament Square waving placards because of this Bill or issues like it. There are more important things on their agenda.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, said no one asked him about this. My noble friend Lady Anderson and I were in the House of Commons more recently than he was, and we had a great number of letters on this issue. On the other hand, it could be that only socialist ladies get them.

Lord Swire: The noble Baroness may well be right, because I was in the House of Commons until 2019 and I got no letters on this subject. I was on the Hunting Bill committee when I first came into the House of Commons and I got a lot of letters about that, mainly because all the evidence was being ignored in favour of prejudice.

Lord Mancroft: If we are all making confessions, I was not in the House of Commons and I never had a letter, but I had a bomb delivered to me in this House from the very nice animal rights people. I also had some threatening letters describing precisely what they were going to do my six year-old daughter, when they followed her to school here in London. Luckily, special branch was very helpful about that. So I am delighted that I did not get any letters, but I know an awful lot about the people who send them.

Lord Bellingham: My Lords, I want to pick up a few points that have come out of this debate on the amendment so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Robathan, supported by my noble friend Lord Roborough.
I return to the point about manifesto commitments, without being completely repetitive. We said in our manifesto that we would ban the import of trophies hunted from endangered species. This is a Private Member’s Bill, but it has government support. The Government were originally going to bring it. Maybe the Minister could help me here when he winds up this debate: if the Government had brought in either a clause in the captive animals Bill or a free-standing government Bill on trophy hunting, would it have referred only to endangered species? At what point in this discussion was the definition of endangered species extended to the 6,200? Was that Henry Smith, the MP for Crawley, going a bit off-piste and substantially widening the Bill? Do the Government support that?
I come back to the point the Minister made a few moments ago, when he said that he was keen to find a way forward. That is absolutely the spirit in which we  should be entering this whole discussion. I served under the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, as an MP, when she was Deputy Speaker, and she was very strict about MPs staying in order. That is why I think it is important that we stay in order on these amendments. On this particular amendment, I absolutely do not want to go beyond what the two noble Peers have said already.
Before going on to one of the points that they have made, I would just say to the noble Baroness that surely it is better to have something at the end of this—a Bill that has the opportunity of going through Parliament and that achieves maybe 70% of what she would like to see—rather than nothing at all. That is the art of compromise. The Minister understood and accepted that a moment ago, and I very much hope that the noble Baroness will too, on reflection, perhaps later in Committee. I do not know how late we are going to go tonight; I think we are perfectly happy to go all night, until perhaps 10 am or 11 am tomorrow morning. We may draw stumps, or maybe we will come back to Committee at another point, but the Bill will come back on Report. I hope that the Minister has time for some very serious reflection, and to have a look at this specific amendment, or maybe the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
I will pick up on one point that the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, made about those African Governments and conservation bodies in the SADC region and in east Africa—I think Tanzania was one of the countries that signed that letter. I had the privilege of serving twice in the Foreign Office, latterly as the Minister responsible for Africa and the UN. I had the opportunity to visit all of those countries in southern Africa, and a chance to speak to most of the Heads of Government, most of the Foreign Ministers and most of the Environment Ministers. Unlike in this country, where we change Ministers every six to nine weeks, in most of those African countries the Foreign Ministers and Environment Ministers stay in place for many years. I have kept up my contacts in all of those countries, and I try to travel to them when I can.
I can tell noble Lords that, further to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, the strength of feeling among those African countries is quite extraordinary; I have been really and truly blown away by it. As I said earlier, we are talking about two trophies of wild lions being brought into this country every year and 115 hunting trophies—probably four or five people who are absolute fanatical hunters are bringing in the bulk of them. This is the minute scale of this issue in this country, and yet it has generated this huge pushback from these African countries, where they are really angry about what our Parliament is trying to do—they have said that to me very clearly.
The noble Lord mentioned the delegation that came over in the summer—the two Ministers and the Back-Bench MP from Botswana, and the heads of different conservation bodies. The letter to our Prime Minister from the heads of mission of the SADC countries, plus Tanzania, was interesting and compelling. What they were saying—and the noble Lord, Lord Swire, summed it up very well—was: “Please trust our judgment about what is best on the ground locally in our country”.  I think they have also said—they have certainly said so to me—that they do not want the Bill to go through in its present form but would accept an amended Bill.
We have here an amendment, put forward by the noble Lord, very similar to the amendment from a moment ago by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Will the Minister, when he sums up, rather than just going back to what he said originally—that he is not prepared to take any amendment—commit to go away and really think this through carefully? We can then come back, if not in Committee then on Report, and put in place an amendment that will keep everyone here in our Parliament and most people in Africa happy. It will actually show that we have listened to them, care about their interests, and have made a small but important change.

Lord Swire: My Lords, I too will be very interested in my noble friend the Minister’s reply to this amendment. It gets to the kernel of the argument, and actually teases out whether or not this whole Bill is about conservation or something completely different.
This amendment is suggesting that it would apply to
“a species classed as threatened on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List and”—
critically, where that list records trophy hunting as a threat to that species. It does beg the question: if it does not record trophy hunting as a threat to that species, and if the animal is not on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s red list, why are we gold-plating legislation which would be perfectly palatable to most of us, and at whose behest?

Earl of Caithness: My Lords, having listened to the debate so far, I think that this amendment is slightly closer to Amendments 14 and 33, which are in my name, so it might be for the benefit of the House if I say my remarks now rather than repeating them at a later stage—if such a thing happens.
The Government have not told us why the present licensing system does not work. I think it is important for us to recall and think about how the present licensing system works. If anybody wants to import a trophy into the UK from a species that is listed in CITES appendix 1 or 2, there is a requirement for an export certificate from the country and an import certificate from the UK. The issuance of these certificates is based on a science-based assessment that there will be no harm to the species—that is worth stressing. In CITES terms, this is called a non-detriment finding, or NDF.
In the UK, implementation of CITES happens domestically via the principal wildlife trade regulations referred to in the Bill. The two annexes of the wildlife trade regulations that are referred to, annexes A and B, are broadly aligned with the CITES appendices. In the UK, the JNCC, as I have said before, is the relevant public body for overseeing imports of animal species, including hunting trophies. For any species listed on annexe A, JNCC is required to determine, first, that the import will not have a harmful effect on the conservation status of the species or on the extent of the territory occupied by the relevant population of the species—this is the NDF—and, secondly, that the import is taking place for one of the purposes referred to in CITES Article 8(3): that is, for research, for  education, for breeding aimed at the conservation of the species, or for other purposes that are not detrimental to the survival of the species concerned.
The JNCC has interpreted other purposes that are not detrimental as including hunting trophies—as long as trophy hunting is part of a careful species management plan that should, as appropriate, be based on sound biological data collected from the target populations; clearly demonstrate that harvest levels are sustainable; be monitored by professional biologists; be promptly modified if necessary to maintain the conservation aims; demonstrate that illegal activities are under control; produce significant and tangible conservation benefits for the species; and provide benefits to, and be in co-operation with, the local people who share the area with, or suffer by, the species concerned.
For species on annexe B, the measures are less strict since, by definition, the species on this annexe are less threatened by trade, and no certificate is required other than for six exceptions: the African lion, African elephant, argali sheep, hippopotamus, polar bear and white rhinoceros. For these species, the UK has the equivalent stricter measures that it applies to annexe A species, meaning that import permits are required—including an NDF. Thus, if a hunting trophy has been issued with an import certificate by JNCC, we can be confident that this is because due process has been followed: a non-detriment finding assessment has been conducted and the assessment has indicated there is no risk to species survival.
This Bill is about conservation and preventing the further endangerment of threatened species. The system in place under CITES already performs this function through a process that has been agreed multilaterally by over 180 countries. The Bill does not need to concern itself with those species that are not under annexes A or B. I have an amendment coming up to delete annexe B. However, the amendment before us is a better one and I would be very happy to support it should it be taken to a Division. However, if it is not, I give notice to my noble friend the Minister that I will wish to divide on my amendment in due course.

Lord Benyon: My Lords, as I said earlier, I spoke at some length on the first amendment and covered many of these points. However, to address this precise amendment, it would narrow the scope of the ban to species considered threatened on the IUCN red list. Where this assessment identifies trophy hunting as a threat, it would remove the power for the UK Government to determine species in scope, which the Bill currently does through annexes A and B of the wildlife trade regulations. This amendment contradicts Clause 2, which clearly sets out the species in scope of the import ban and would remove the power for the UK Government to determine species in scope. With that in consideration, I respectfully ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Robathan: My Lords, I note that almost all the speeches have been in favour of this amendment. That is because it is about conservation. I am a conservationist—I think everyone who has spoken is a conservationist—but this Bill, which my amendment aims to improve, is not about conservation. I find that very distressing—I really do.
The two noble Baronesses on the Front Bench said that they had letters from people supporting a trophy Bill when they were in the Commons. They may have done, but I remember a rather dreadful organisation called 38 Degrees, which ran campaigns the whole time. I discovered that some of my constituents who wrote to me and emailed me on standard responses that were given by 38 Degrees had not even sent them themselves; they were sent for them. We all know how campaigns can work.
I am disappointed that the proposer of the Bill and the Minister do not think that we need to highlight conservation in this Bill. I was not going to divide the House because it is time for my bed; I am getting rather old.

A noble Lord: You are younger than Joe Biden.

Lord Robathan: I am younger than Joe Biden. However, my wife and my children in particular tell me how old I am.

Noble Lords: No!

Lord Robathan: They do. Because people are urging me to, I think I will test the opinion of the House.
Ayes 25, Noes 32.

Amendment 5 disagreed.
House resumed.
House adjourned at 10.09 pm.